Sitting of 1 November 1906

Preamble
The House met at quarter before Three of the Clock.
PETITIONS.
  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL (RELIGIOUS TEACHING).
  Petitions against alteration of Law; from Leintwardine, and Little Hereford, to lie upon the Table.
  EXPLOSIVES IN COAL MINES.
  Petition of C. E. Parker-Rhodes, for inquiry; to lie upon the Table.
  LABOUR TEST WORKERS (ENFRANCHISEMENT).
  Petition from Whitehaven, for legislation; to lie upon the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS ON SUNDAY BILL.
  Petition from Wolverhampton, in favour; to lie upon the Table.
RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and confirmed by the Board of Trade, amending the Bere, Alston, and Calstock Light Railways Orders, 1900 and 1903, and for other purposes (Bere, Alston, and Calstock Light Railway (Extension of Time, etc.) Order, 1906) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1890.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the county of Carnarvon (being an extension of the existing and authorised

  1295
  undertaking of the Portmadoc, Beddgelert and South Snowdon Railway Company) and the transfer to that Company of the powers conferred upon the North Wales Narrow Gauge Railways Company by the North Wales Narrow Gauge Railways (Beddgelert Light Railway Extension) Order, 1900, and other matters (Portmadoc, Beddgelert, and South Snowdon Railway (Beddgelert Light Railway Extension) Order, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the county of Cardigan, from Lampeter to Aberayron and to New Quay (Lampeter, Aberayron, and New Quay Light Railway Order, 1906) [by Command]; to lie upon Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of a Light Railway in the West Riding of the county of York, from Clayton West to Darton (Clayton West and Darton Light Railway Order, 1906) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the rural district of Bath, in the county of Somerset, from; Western to Lansdown (Bath and Lansdown Light Railway Order, 1906) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the rural district of Keynsham, in the county of Somerset (being an extension of the existing and authorised undertaking of Bath Electric Tramways, Limited) (Bath Electric Tramways (Light Railway Extensions) Order, 1906) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the parishes of Kettle and Falkland, in the county of Fife, from Falkland Road Station to Falkland (Falkland Light Railway Order, 1906) [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  Copy presented, of Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways in the urban district of Tottenham in the county of Middlesex (Tottenham Walthamstow Light Railways Order, 1906) [by Command]: to lie upon the Table.
  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Return of Evictions in Ireland for the quarter ended 30th September, 1906 [by Command]; to lie upon the Table.
  IMPORT AND EXPORT TRADE (IRELAND).
  Copy presented, of Report on the Trade in Imports and Exports at Irish Ports during the year ended 31st December, 1904 [by Command]; to lie upon the table.
  PAPER LAID UPON THE TABLE BY THE CLERK OF THE HOUSE.
  Public Records (Prisons). Copy of Schedule containing a list and particulars of Classes of Documents belonging to the Prison of the Marshalsea of the Court of King's or Queen's Bench, the "Queen's Prison," the Fleet Prison, and the Prison of the Marshalsea of His Majesty's Household and Palace Court, which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office [by Act].

  STREET BETTING (CONVICTIONS).
  Address for "Return showing the number of Convictions for Street Betting during the years 1903, 1904, and 1905 in the Metropolitan Police District, and in each of the boroughs of Birmingham, Newcastle-upon-Tyne, Wolverhampton, Liverpool, Blackpool, York, Bradford, and Manchester, with the number of cases in which the persons convicted were apprehended without warrant, and also, as

  1297
  regards the boroughs of Blackpool, York, Bradford, and Manchester, the number of cases in which a line exceeding £5, or imprisonment without option of fine, was imposed for a second or subsequent offence."— (Mr. H. H. Marks.)

QUESTIONS AND ANSWERS CIRCULATED WITH THE VOTES.

  H.M.S. "Philomel."
  MR. BELLAIRS: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty when the last refit of H.M S. "Philomel" was completed and at what cost; on what date the order was given for her to be put on the ineffective list and dismantled; on what date she was towed round this year to Haulbowline to be refitted; whether the work was commenced; whether the work has now been suspended; and whether the Admiralty are satisfied that all these steps were calculated to increase efficiency.
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The last refit of H.M.S. "Philomel" was completed at Haulbowline in 1904, at a total cost of £23,924. The ship was ordered to be placed in the E Division of Reserve on 7th December of the same year. She was towed round to Haulbowline to be refitted 31st August, 1906; the work has been begun and is still in progress. With regard to the last part of the Question, as the result of the "Philomel" being placed on the list of "Ships of comparatively small fighting value" the cost of her upkeep in commission has been saved, and it is not considered that the action taken has been contrary to efficiency.

  American Passengers and Dublin Mail Trains.
  MR. J. P. NANNETTI: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware that passengers from America arriving at night at Queenstown are caused delay and expense owing to the refusal of the Great Southern and Western Railway to carry them by the train bearing the mails to Dublin; and whether, seeing that tourists and others on going out to America via Queens-town are taken to that port by the train bearing the mails, he will see if it is possible to remove the difficulty complained of by those coming in.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) As the hon. Member is no doubt aware, passengers are already conveyed by most of the special American mail trains from Queenstown to Dublin. Some difficulty appears to have recently arisen in consequence of the railway company now running fewer special trains than formerly for passengers in connection with the homeward American packets. I am, however, making further inquiry as to the position of the Post Office in the matter, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member.

  Post Office Medical Officers—Retirement Regulations.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: To ask the Postmaster-General whether he has decided to apply an age limit of sixty to the tenure of Post Office medical appointments; and, if so, whether he has considered the hardship involved in enforcing the new rule at short notice on existing holders of these appointments who have hitherto had reason to suppose that their appointment would continue as long as they were able to discharge their duties efficiently.
  MR. AUSTEN CHAMBERLAIN: To ask the Postmaster-General why the medical officer of the Redditch Post Office has been called upon to retire; whether any complaint has been received from the staff under his care as to his discharge of his duties; and, if not, whether, having regard to the hardship involved in applying a new age rule suddenly to existing holders of appointments supposed to be for life or during good behaviour, he will reconsider his decision in the case of this officer.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) It will be convenient to answer these Questions together. It seems expedient to review annually the efficiency of medical officers over sixty years of age, retaining those only who are found to be thoroughly efficient, and retaining none in any circumstances over seventy years of age. Of those over sixty, fourteen have been found to be inefficient, and to these notice has been given; and I am sure that the right hon. Gentleman would not advise their retention in so important a post. The medical officer to the Post Office at Redditch is over sixty years of age. I regret to say that, after full consideration of all the circumstances affecting

  1299
  him, I have felt bound to decide against retaining his services.

  Employment of Ex-soldiers.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will grant a Return, showing the percentage of ex-soldiers employed in the RoyalOrdnance Factories, the postal and customs services, borough and county police forces, railway and tramway services, prisons and asylums, and by municipal corporations and county authorities generally.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) A Return, which is included in the Report of the Committee on the Civil Employment of ex-Soldiers and Sailors [Cd. 2991], issued 2nd July, 1906, shows that the number of employees in the Ordnance Factorieswas then 15,829, of whom, 1861 were ex-soldiers and 245 ex-sailors. As regards the other channels for employment of ex-soldiers and sailors, I would refer the hon. Member to the other Departments of State concerned.

  Case of Lance-Corporal Gray.
  MR. WILLIAM ABRAHAM: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether his attention has been directed to the case of Lance-Corporal Gray, a sufferer from paralysis, contracted while in active service in India, who has been discharged as incurable from Netley Hospital; and if, seeing that the best years of the life of Lance-Corporal Gray have been spent out of Ireland and in the service of the Army, he can see his way to make such arrangements for the support of this disabled soldier as will prevent him becoming a charge upon the ratepayers of the union of Fermoy, where he was born.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The origin of the disability for which Lance-Corporal Gray was invalided from the Army cannot be attributed to his military service, and it is therefore not possible to award him any pension from Army funds. Every endeavour, however, has been made to get this non-commissioned officer transferred to a home, but without success, and, as he had no home of his own to go to, the usual procedure was followed, viz., to transfer him to the care of the guardians of the union where he had a settlement. If Lance-Corporal
  1300
  Gray had been retained longer in Netley Hospital, it would have been at the expense of other cases which might benefit by treatment in that institution.

  Crimean and Indian Mutiny Veterans.
  MR. BYLES: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether he knows that a new association, called the Crimea and Indian Mutiny Veterans' Association, has been formed in Manchester for the sole purpose of assisting men who fought for their country at the battles of Alma, Balaclava, Inkermann, Sebastopol, Delhi, Lucknow, etc.; that it is appealing for the sum of £1,600 to assist these old men; what were the amounts contributed by the public to the Royal Patriotic Fund after the Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny; how much of those funds still remain; and whether some of this money could not be appropriated to the use of the Manchester association.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) I have no knowledge of the particular association referred to, but I am aware that similar associations exist in some large towns. The money subscribed by the public to the Royal Patriotic Fund was solely for the benefit of the widows, children, and dependent relatives of officers and men of the naval and military forces of the Crown. It cannot be applied to the relief of ex-soldiers. The total subscribed was £1,500,000, and a balance of about £85,000 still remains. About £440,000 was subscribed to the Indian Mutiny Relief Fund, but no money is available for fresh grants from this source. I may add that the administration of those funds is not in the hands of my Department, but necessitous survivors of the Crimean and Mutiny campaigns are eligible for small Army pensions, varying according to their age and necessities.

  Customs Examining Officers
  MR. CLELAND: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether he is aware that the second class examining officers of Customs to whom temporary personal allowances of £7 10s. and £15 per annum respectively were granted as compensation for retardation of promotion due to departmental reorganisations had to serve from thirteen to sixteen years before obtaining the

  1301
  position, while officers are at present promoted in the ordinary course at less than six years, and every officer on completion of eight years' service will receive the salary of second class examining officer if not promoted at that time; and that a difference of eight years' deferred promotion to the seniors represents a loss of £60 per annum for a lengthened period against which only £7 10s. or £15 per annum has been granted for a short period, with the result that, in the event of neither officer obtaining any further advancement in the service, the officer at present promoted will be eight years longer in receipt of the maximum salary, and will receive upwards of £1,000 more than the senior; and, if so, whether the Board of Customs and the Treasury will reconsider the case of those officers whose promotion was delayed through circumstances over which they had no control, with a view to giving a personal allowance until the maximum salary is reached; as a partial compensation for the loss they have sustained.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) The service as outdoor officer of the second class examining officers to whom temporary allowances have been or will be granted as compensation for retardation of promotion is as follows:—Under thirteen years, 236 officers; between thirteen and sixteen years (the period stated in the Question), 230 officers; over sixteen years, 73 officers. It is true that officers (assistants of Customs) are now being promoted to the grade of second class examining officer after less than six years' service in the Department, and that, if not so promoted after eight years' service, they will be allowed the salary of that grade. But the older officers to whom the compensation allowances have been granted entered the department as outdoor officers, and as such were required to perform a certain amount of inferior work which has now been handed over to the unestablished class known as watchers. Hence the entrance examination of the outdoor officer was much simpler, and the scale of salary lower, than in the case of assistants, and no proper comparison can be made between the periods served before promotion, or the amounts of salary received, by those who entered as outdoor officers and those who entered as assistants. With reference to the con-
  1302
  cluding part of the Question, the claims of the second class examining officers (formerly outdoor officers) are considered to have been reasonably met, as I explained in the Answer to the Question by my hon. friend the Member for the North Division of West Ham on 18th July last.†

  Coal Export Records.
  MR. CAIRNS: To ask the Secretary to the Treasury whether, in view of the fact that the tax upon exported coal ceases on the 1st November, he will cause to be continued the system of records made during recent years at the various Custom Houses so that information may still be obtainable as to the various descriptions of coals exported.
  (Answered by Mr. McKenna.) It has been decided to continue the system, established during recent years, of recording the various descriptions of coal exported. Information on the subject will be available as hitherto.

  Prison Discipline.
  MR. TALBOT: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been called to a recent exhibition of mutinous conduct amongst the convicts confined in His Majesty's prison at Maidstone; whether it is part of the policy of the directors of prisons to confine such prisoners within the narrow limits of ordinary prisons; and whether he would consider the advisability of employing such prisoners on the public works prisons, as heretofore.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Gladstone.) There has been no change of policy of late years. For many years convicts, except those employed in quarrying and farm labour, have been kept within the prison enclosure; formerly at Chatten-den, Wormwood Scrubs, and Dover, and now at all convict establishments, and employed in building operations and other trades. Maidstone is not an "ordinary" local prison, but advantage has been taken of the large and favourable site (not required by the local prison) to build a new prison for the detention of prisoners sentenced to penal servitude,
  †See (4) Debates, clxi., 164,165.

  1303
  who are employed in the work of construction—a healthy outdoor labour, similar to that performed by convicts at Portland and Dartmoor. It is pro posed to send only selected cases to Maidstone for this purpose—100 to 200 in number. The rest will go, as usual, to the so-called public works prisons, but at these prisons about 60 per cent, are employed inside the prison enclosure at various trades and industries. Most of the convicts who recently showed an insubordinate spirit at Maidstone had recently been transferred from Borstal, and no other cause can be assigned for the outbreak than dislike of the change, as their labour at Borstal had been comparatively easy, while at Maidstone they had to be employed on work of a more arduous kind.

  Burwell Estate, Cambridgeshire.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: To ask the hon. Member for South Somerset, as representing the President of the Board of Agriculture, what were the opportunities afforded to the thirty-nine agricultural labourers lately employed by the Crown on the Burwell Estate, in Cambridgeshire (and since dismissed), to acquire small holdings from the present tenants; on what terms they were offered small holdings; and on what terms the same holdings have since been let.
  (Answered by Sir Edward Strachey.) The Crown farm at Burwell has been let by the Commissioners of Woods and Forests to my hon. friend the Member for Newmarket, and they are not officially concerned with the arrangements he has made to divide it into small holdings. But I am authorised by him to say that every one of the labourers formerly employed on the farm was personally offered a portion of the land at a rent sufficient to cover the rent my hon. friend is paying, together with interest and sinking fund on all outlay, and a sufficient margin for expenses of management. It is on these terms that the land has now been sublet by him to fifty-nine small holders.

  Blacklion Postal Arrangements.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask the Postmaster-General if he is aware that Mrs. Brachen,
  1304
  of the Hill, Blacklion, whose house is situate less than 200 yards from the post office in the village of Blacklion, county Cavan, only gets delivery of letters at her house on two days in the week; is this in accordance with the rules as to delivery of letters at Blacklion: and, if so, will he take steps to have the rules altered so as to secure a daily delivery of letters at places not unreasonably remote from the post office.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I have called for a Report on this subject, and will communicate the result to the hon. Member in due course.

  Telegraph Press Rates to India.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Postmaster-General, having regard to the fact that the Press rate on telegrams to India is much in excess of the rate to Australia, and that a large population in India are greatly interested in the dissemination of news from this country, will he consider the expediency of communicating with the cable companies concerned, with a view to secure a reduction in the charges on telegrams to India.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) The hon. Member must, I fear, have been misinformed. The Press rate on telegrams to India is the same as that to Australia. In regard to the question of a reduction of the rate, I would refer the hon. Member to the Answer given yesterday by the Secretary of State for India to the Question of the hon. Member for Hythe.†

  Keighley Post Office.
  MR. BRIGG: To ask the Postmaster General if he will cause an inquiry to be made into the conditions of the service of the staff of the Keighley post office, inasmuch as some of the clerks say that the duties of the office are unequally distributed and that the night attendances are excessive.
  (Answered by Mr. Sydney Buxton.) I will cause inquiry to be made into the indoor duties of the staff at the Keighley office and will inform the hon. Member of the result.
  † See Col. 1097.

  H.M.S. "Montagu."
  MR. PIKE PEASE: To ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can say what steps are being taken to replace H.M.S. "Montagu."
  (Answered by Mr. Edmund Robertson.) The hon. Member's Question bears upon the Estimates for the next financial year, and it would therefore be premature to make any statement until those Estimates are presented to the House.

  Income-Tax.
  MR. FETHERSTONHAUGH: To ask Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, whether he is aware that the public have to render returns for income-tax purposes to the surveyors of taxes in whose offices they are dealt with by a clerical staff who are not civil servants; whether he will consider the expediency in the public interest of arranging that such confidential returns should not be dealt with by unestablished clerks or officials, and that duties of so much delicacy and importance should not be discharged by unestablished clerks, while such positions as those of postmen, messengers, and sorters are filled by established officials; will he have the matter considered by a Committee of the House; and will he say if the surveyors of taxes have themselves condemned the present system or made representations suggesting the desirability of a change.
  (Answered by Mr. Asquith.) The employment of established clerks has been tried, but was abandoned as being unsatisfactory both as regards cost and efficiency. The Surveyors of Taxes have instructions to retain in their own hands all really confidential work. I do not think any useful purpose would be served by the suggested inquiry by a Parliamentary Committee; the main questions involved are questions of departmental administration which primarily concern the Board of Inland Revenue and the Treasury, and they have been carefully examined and considered by the Board and by the Treasury on more than one occasion in recent years.

  British Indian Mission to South Eastern Persia.
  MR. REES: To ask the Secretary of State for India
  1306
  whether he will lay upon the Table the copy of Mr. Newcomen's Report of the British Indian Commercial Mission to South-Eastern Persia.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) A notice was issued by the Government of India in May last stating that applications for copies should be addressed to the Upper India Chamber of Commerce. The Report not being a Government publication, it is not proposed to lay it on the Table.

  Chowkidari Tax in Bengal.
  MR. WEIR: To ask the Secretary of State for India, having regard to the fact that the chowkidari tax, which is levied for the remuneration of village watchmen, presses heavily on the agriculturists of Bengal, will he consider the expediency of communicating with the Government of India with a view to secure its remission.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Morley.) The Police Commission have pointed out certain defects in the present regulations for the assessment of the local tax in question, and have made recommendations with the object of preventing it from pressing too heavily on the poor. These recommendations are, I understand, engaging the attention of the Bengal Government, but I can hold out no hope that the tax will be entirely remitted.

  Freemount National Schools.
  MR. FLYNN: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Commissioners of National Education have yet taken any steps towards effecting the necessary repairs of the National Schools, Freemount, county Cork; are they aware that the present dilapidated and insanitary condition of the building endangers the health of the scholars and gravely affects the average attendance; and, in view of the undertaking that there would be no delay in effecting the repairs, given last May, whether the Commissioners can explain why the necessary work has not yet been commenced.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Commissioners of National Education inform me that they have sanctioned a grant of

  1307
  £456 towards the cost of rebuilding the Freemount schoolhouse. As, however, the existing lease under which the premises are held has but a few years to run, the Commissioners consider it necessary that a new lease should be obtained before so large an expenditure of public money is incurred. Instructions for the preparation of a new lease have accordingly been issued, and when this has been signed the necessary steps will at once be taken. The Commissioners are aware that the temporary buildings in which school work has been conducted are unsuitable, and that the average attendance has, as a result, been appreciably smaller.

  Captain Caldbeck's Estate, Queen's County.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he can say what progress has been made in the negotiations for the purchase by the Estates Commissioners of the estate of Captain Caldbeck, Ballocolla, Queen's County, 250 acres of which is un-tenanted; can he state what price Captain Caldbeck has asked; and whether the Commissioners have made an offer, and, if so, what sum.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) I am informed by the Estates Commissioners that the vendor in this case consented in June last to sell his estate to them under Section 6 of the Act of 1903. The Commissioners have since had the estate inspected with a view to purchase, and their inspector's report was received at the end of September. Important queries upon the report have since delayed the consideration of the matter, but the report is now ready for the Commissioners' consideration, and they hope shortly to deal with the matter.

  Aghanville Estate, King's County.
  MR. DELANY: To ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, with reference to Aghanville Ranch, near Geashill, King's County, which has been untenanted for the past twenty-five years, and is since the beginning of the present year in the occupation of Mr. James Dunne, Kilbride,
  1308
  Portarlington, and stated to have been purchased by him, whether he can say what price Mr. Dunne has asked for the portion of the estate which he proposes to sell to the Estates Commissioners for the enlargement of small holdings in the locality, and what value the inspector has placed upon the same; and whether an offer has been made Mr. Dunne by the Commissioners.
  (Answered by Mr. Bryce.) The Estates Commissioners inform me that they are at present in negotiation with Mr. James Dunne for the purchase of about 10Q acres of the land in question, and have communicated to him their inspector's estimated price. The Commissioners, however, do not consider it desirable that they should disclose particulars of prices which they may be asked or may offer in such cases.

  Forts on the Surrey Hills—Disposal of Sites.
  MR. BRODIE: To ask the Secretary of State for War what has been the actual cost of construction and equipment of each of the forts on the Surrey hills, and how the amounts compare with the original estimates; and whether, if the forts are to be abandoned as useless for military purposes, in view of the fact that the neighbourhood is rapidly developing for building, it will be possible to retain the sites, and any adjoining land now in possession of the Government, as national property instead of selling the same.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) The annexed statement gives the approximate figures for land and works in connection with the mobilisation centres round London. They were built by degrees out of three different sources of funds, and it is not practicable without prolonged research to trace the original estimates. But as there are no reports of excesses, the actual expenditure must have teen approximately that of the estimates. As regards the question of the retention of the sites, I would refer my hon. friend to the Answer given by me on Monday last to the hon. Member for West Bristol. †
  † See Col. 671.

  Statement of Expenditure on London Defences.

  Station.

  Vote 10.

  Imperial Defence Loan.

  Military Works Loan.

  Total.

  Land.

  Works.

  Land.

  Works.

  Land.

  Works.

  Land.

  Works.

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  £

  Henley Grove

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  436

  6

  —

  —

  —

  6,740

  436

  6,716

  Denbies

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  1,062

  55

  —

  —

  21

  9,794

  1,083

  9,849

  Merstham

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  957

  249

  —

  —

  —

  5,113

  957

  5,362

  Farningham

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  2,686

  29

  —

  —

  —

  8,174

  2,686

  8,203

  Pewley Hill

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  3,493

  10,435

  —

  —

  —

  26

  3,493

  10,461

  Box Hill

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  2,221

  495

  —

  —

  100

  5,768

  2,321

  6,263

  Westerham

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  1,626

  106

  —

  —

  —

  8,924

  1,626

  9,030

  Betchworth

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  1,364

  55

  —

  —

  —

  5,194

  1,364

  5,249

  Reigate Hill

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  3,031

  1,114

  —

  —

  332

  10,225

  3,363

  11,339

  Fosterdown

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  2,078

  693

  —

  —

  —

  6,094

  2,078

  6,787

  Oxted (Woldingham)

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  2,408

  86

  —

  —

  —

  5,063

  2,408

  5,149

  Halstead

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  2,731

  10,733

  —

  —

  198

  11,621

  2,929

  22,354

  North Weald

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  1,457

  10,728

  —

  —

  —

  1,680

  1,457

  12,408

  Caterham

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  111

  54

  2,266

  6,287

  —

  —

  2,377

  6,341

  Warley

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  —

  —

  —

  4,220

  —

  38

  —

  4,258

  Tilbury

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  —

  —

  —

  2,275

  —

  19

  —

  2,294

  Grand totals

  -

  -

  -

  25,661

  34,838

  2,266

  12,782

  651

  84,473

  28,578

  132,093

  £60,499

  £15,048

  £85,124

  £160,671

  Sites in italics are in Surrey.

  American Tinned Meat.
  MR. HENNIKER HEATON: To ask the Secretary of State for War whether it is his intention to publish Colonel Hobb's Report on the Chicago Meat Yards; and, if not, can he state generally if the Report is unsatisfactory or otherwise; what is roughly the quantity of American tinned meat in stock for the British Army and its cost; and whether His Majesty's Government will send an officer to report on Australian tinned or preserved meats, with a view to supplying the British Army from this source.
  (Answered by Mr. Secretary Haldane.) It is not intended to publish this Report, which is now under the consideration of various Government Departments. No statement can be made regarding it until a final decision has been arrived at. About 3,250,000 pounds of American tinned meat is held at present by the Army, and its cost is about £80,000. There is no present intention of sending an officer to report on Australian tinned meat.

QUESTIONS IN THE HOUSE.

  Naval Manœuvres.
  MR. BEAUCHAMP: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether he can state the number of merchant vessels, other than those chartered, which placed themselves at the disposal of the Admiralty during the recent manœuvres; whether all or any of them sailed under convoy; whether any were captured; and, if so, how many.
  THE SECRETARY TO THE ADMIRALTY (Mr. EDMI'ND ROBERTSON,): I am not in a position at present to make any statement on this subject.

  Criticisms of Naval Designs.
  MR BELLAIRS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether the Admiralty still adhere to the refusal to follow the precedent set when Sir William White was authorised to read a paper on the new designs of ships at the Society of Naval Architects; and whether, seeing that the speed of the now ships has considerably increased the
  1312
  cost of the ships, the Admiralty will facilitate discussion and criticism by publishing details of the six alternative designs from which the selection of the "Dreadnought" and "Invincible" was made.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Answer is in the affirmative to the first part of the Question, and in the negative to the second part.

  Newfoundland Naval Reserve
  MR. HICKS BEACH: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to embark the naval reserve of Newfoundland for a cruise this year; or whether this customary practice has been abandoned in consequence of the scarcity of available ships brought about by the naval reductions of His Majesty's Government.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the affirmative, and to the second in the negative.

  Naval Repairs.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether there is any unusual accumulation of repairs to battleships and cruisers required at the present time; and whether any unusual delay is being experienced in getting such repairs effected.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The Answer to both parts of the Question is in the negative; and it may be stated that the expenditure already incurred on repairs during the current financial year is in excess of that contemplated when the present Estimates were framed.

  H.M.S. "Montagu."
  MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty upon what date and to whom H.M.S. "Montagu" was sold and for what amount; and, if so, whether any and how many of the guns, giving particulars of their displacement, were comprised in the purchase.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The ship has not been sold.

  The Fleet.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty whether it is intended to reduce the number of officers and men serving in His Majesty's fleet.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: The hon. Member's Question bears upon the Estimates for the next financial year, and it would therefore be premature to make any statement until those Estimates are presented to the House.
  MR. PIKE PEASE: Have the Government any intention of abandoning the two Power standard? Will the hon. Gentleman say that.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I cannot make any such statement.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: Are we to understand that there is to be no reduction before next year?
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: No; the hon. Gentleman is to understand that any questions relating to next year's Estimates are to be postponed until they are presented en bloc.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: Is it intended to reduce the number of officers and men serving in His Majesty's fleet?
  [No Answer was returned.]

  Dockyard Wages.
  MR. JENKINS: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Admiralty, whether the £60,000 advance in wages has been distributed in accordance with promise made by him in August last; and whether he is in a position to state what trades or grades of workmen will receive an advance in wages, and the amount they will receive.
  MR. EDMUND ROBERTSON: I have nothing to add to my reply to a similar Question asked by the hon. Member for Portsmouth on the 29th October, when I stated that full particulars would be published in about ten days time.†
  † See Col. 684.

  War Office Land at Fairlight.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, whether the War Office has recently agreed to sell a plot of land in the neighbourhood of Fairlight, Sussex, to a brewery company for the purpose of erecting a public-house; whether a similar agreement was previously made with the same company with respect to an adjoining plot of land; whether, on this previous occasion, the magistrates refused to grant a licence owing to the local feeling against the erection of a public-house in that place; and whether, having regard to the fact that this local feeling still exists, the War Office will withdraw their offer to sell the plot of land in question.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,): It is the case that a plot of War Department land near Fairlight which is no longer required for military purposes, has recently been acquired by a brewery company. The relations between the company and the War Department in this matter have been merely those of buyer and seller. Nothing is known at the War Office of any similar agreement to sell, or of a refusal of the magistrates to grant a licence. The Department is unaware of any general opposition to the-erection of a public-house at this place, but this would appear to be entirely a matter for the licensing authorities. The War Department is not in a position to withdraw from the terms of sale arranged.

  Bexhill Sea Wall.
  MR. COURTHOPE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War, if he will state the reasons for the repeated refusals of the War Office to allow the Corporation of Bexhill to erect a sea wall in front of the War Office property at that place; whether he is aware that the consequent interruption of the sea wall is not only a source of inconvenience and a disfigurement in the very centre of the Bexhill sea front, but an actual source of danger owing to the erosive action of the sea; and whether he will reconsider his decision in this matter.
  MR. HALDANE: I have been in communication with the hon. Member on this

  1315
  subject. The War Department offered the corporation a lease of the land for fourteen years subject to three months notice, but this was declined on the ground that the corporation was not willing to give the rent suggested. If the corporation care to purchase the land, the War Department are willing to consider an offer for it. It is obvious that the War Department could not consent to allow its land to be used in the manner proposed by the corporation as its selling price would be prejudicially affected.

  Netley Hospital Nurses.
  MR. RENDALL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether he will explain why nurses at Netley Hospital, and in the Army's service generally, are not permitted when off duty, except when on furlough, to take part in public or private dances, seeing that the prohibition does not apply to medical men in the same hospitals; whether a highly trained professional class, such as nurses, are to be placed in a different position on the ground of sex to officers in the Army, who, provided they are on duty at the appointed time have no restrictions placed on their use of time when off duty; and whether he will at once free the nurses from this interference with their liberty.
  MR. HALDANE: I have consulted the Nursing Board which contains among its members many ladies of great experience in these matters, and they have advised me to the following effect:—The Nursing Board requires for Her Majesty's Nursing Service gentlewomen who are devoted first and foremost to their work for its own sake and the sake of their patients, and who will, therefore, desire to live quietly and unostentatiously without looking for much gaiety. Occasional attendance at operas, theatres, concerts, and other places of amusement is not incompatible with the due performance of their duties, and is allowed at discretion of the matron; but the late hours involved by attendance at balls and dances, in the opinion of the Board, incapacitates them from giving proper attention to their patients on the following day.
  MR. CLEMENT EDWARDS: What does the right
  1316
  hon. Gentleman mean by "these matters"?
  MR. HALDANE: I refer to the arrangements which have been made for the performance of the duties of the nurses. I may say that in this case the weight of authority of these experienced matrons and highly trained ladies has prevailed over my natural instinct.

  Essex Fisheries.
  MR. WHITEHEAD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for War whether the War Office has yet come to a decision on the proposal that fishermen in the district of Shoebury, Southend, and Leigh should be permitted to get cockles and to fish generally over the whole of the foreshore in that district vested in the War Office; and whether any regulations to that end are under consideration.
  MR. HALDANE: The War Department has purchased the fishery in question, and the issue of regulations in regard to it is now under consideration.

  Bridging the Ganges.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India if he can state what reply was made to the offer of the Bengal and North-Western Railway to build a bridge over the Ganges at Godagiri at their own expense.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR INDIA (Mr. MORLEY,): No reply has yet been given to the offer of the Bengal and North-Western Railway Company to build a bridge over the Ganges at Godagiri, as I am awaiting a Report from the Government of India on the subject.

  The Partition of Bengal.
  DR. RUTHERFORD: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether in view of the promise made by Mr. Brodrick in August, 1905, that Papers on the partition of Bengal would be laid before the House, and of the fact that the partition was effected in the autumn recess immediately following, before Papers could be laid, and in view of the fact that the House has never been afforded the opportunity of discussing the subject, and that

  1317
  the partition has given rise to discontent in India, he will appoint a Select Committee of the House to inquire into and report upon all the circumstances connected with the partition of the province.
  MR. MORLEY: I stated on Monday last that it would be contrary to the public interest to present Papers on the subject of the agitation against the recent partition of Bengal;† and I am still less prepared to take any action of the kind suggested by the hon. Member.
  † See Col 689.
  MR. KEIR HARDIE: Arising out of that Answer, may I ask whether we are to understand that this House exercises no control whatever over Indian affairs?
  MR. MORLEY: No; I do not think that is at all the inference to be drawn from my Answer.
  MR. J. WARD: Does the right hon. Gentleman think it is possible for the House to give proper attention in regard to this subject if it is not supplied with the actual facts?
  MR. MORLEY: No. I should think no deliberative body could exercise deliberative functions usefully unless acquainted with the actual facts?
  MR. WILLIAM EEDMOND: That is why we want Home Rule.
  *DR. RUTHERFORD: Were not the papers laid after Parliament rose?
  MR. MORLEY: I am not sure.
  MR. MORLEY: The facts in relation to the partition of Bengal were, as I have stated, laid before Parliament on some dare in August last year.
  MR. J. WARD: Will not the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration that this is an entirely new Parliament, that at least two-thirds, I should think, of the Members know nothing of these Papers, and does he not under the circumstances consider it advisable that the Papers should be re-issued?
  † See Col. 689.
  MR. MORLEY: So far as I am concerned there is no objection at all to the re issue of the Papers. But they will not throw any light upon the real point. The real point is this: when the present Government came into office they found that the partition of Bengal had been carried out. It then became a question, in our view, largely of political expediency, whether that transaction should be reversed, or whether it should be upheld. The question was whether the disadvantages of setting aside all the operations which had followed did not far more than counterbalance the errors, as we thought them, of the original change. It was, therefore, a question largely of political expediency, and, of course, Ministers took the view I have announced on their own responsibility. In what they have done they may have taken a wrong view, but to appoint a Select Committee to consider the question of the presentation of Papers, such as my hon. friend desires, would really not help the House one atom to a sound conclusion in the matter.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: May I ask whether it is not a well ascertained fact that public opinion in Bengal is dead against the partition, and whether, in view of that being the case, an alteration cannot be made in accordance with Liberal principles, and having regard to the views of the people?
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. That Question hardly arises out of the one before the House.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Then I will put one on the Paper.

  Tibet.
  SIR EDWARD SASSOON: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for India whether he is now in a position to lay Papers relating to Tibet upon the Table of the House?
  MR. MORLEY: There are at present no Papers relating to Thibet which could be presented consistently with the public interest. The agreement with China as to the Lhasa Convention has been already published.

  Christian Schools in British African Pro tectorates.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether in British Central Africa or any other British Protectorate in Africa, any law, or rule, having the force of law, restricts the erection of Christian schools to villages in which the chief and one-fifth of the population consent to such erection?
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE COLONIES (Mr. CHURCHILL): There is, so far as the Secretary of State is aware, no law, or rule having the force of law, in any British Protectorate in Africa which restricts the erection of Christian schools, except in the British Central Africa Protectorate, where, as a consequence of disturbances in the earlier days of the Protectorate, a notice was issued by the Commissioner to the effect that a missionary must obtain the assent of the chief and of the majority of the people to the building of a church, chapel or school, in villages which have been created—as nearly all have been created —native reserves.

  Chiromo Game Reserve.
  MR. REES: I beg to ask the Undersecretary of State for the Colonies whether any decision has boon arrived at regarding the question of reducing the area or altering the boundaries of the game reserve at Chiromo in view of further reports received from British Central Africa concerning the difficulty of using the road from Katungas to Chiromo, owing to the loss of human life and of cattle by lions, and the further loss of life by lions in Chiromo, and the consequent interruption to business enterprises in that locality?
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Secretary of State has received a detailed report from the Commissioner of the British Central Africa Protectorate which shows that the area of the game reserve near Chiromo has been reduced, and is now very much smaller than it originally was. It is considered that the present limits of the reserve should be maintained, and the Secretary of State has decided not to direct any further reductions at present. The reserve is intended only for the remnant of the buffalo in that Protectorate,
  1320
  and in no way to protect, lions or other carnivora, which can be shot at any time by any one. The road from Chiromo to Katungas does not pass through the reserve, but quite clear of it on the east side; the railway passes far to the east of it. There has been no loss of life or cattle through lions on the road or in the neighbourhood of Chiromo which can be traced to the existence of the game reserve.

  British Indians in South Africa.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether he is aware that, under an Act recently passed by the Natal Legislature, His Majesty's Indian subjects resident in Natal, many of whom are large ratepayers, will be deprived of the municipal franchise; and whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to sanction this Act.
  MR. BYLES: At the same time, may I ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been directed to a petition of the Natal Indian Congress lately received, complaining that British Indians resident in Natal are deprived by the Corporations Consolidation Bill, recently passed, of the municipal franchise which they have hitherto enjoyed; and whether, seeing that besides indentured labourers there is in the Colony a free population of some 15,000 Indians, chiefly belonging to the mercantile class, and many of them highly educated, he will say what action, if any, His Majesty's Government proposes to take to prevent this act of disfranchisement.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The Bill excludes for the future from the municipal franchise persons who are disqualified for the Parliamentary franchise unless they are exempted as provided in the Act No. 8 of 1896, but saves the rights of those persons already on the burgess rolls and otherwise qualified. The Petition from the Natal Indian Congress has been received, and it and the Bill are still under consideration.

  British West African Produce Company, Limited.
  MR. J. D. WHITE: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of.

  1321
  State for the Colonies whether his attention has been directed to the fact that the prospectus of the British West Africa Produce Company, Limited, after referring to concessions covering an area of more than 4,000 square miles, states that with a view to a sufficient supply of native labour the chiefs have under the said concessions undertaken to sow, plant, and cultivate; and whether steps will be taken to insure that these arrangements do not involve forced labour on the part of the natives. I beg also to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether his attention has been directed to the prospectus of the British West Africa Produce Company, Limited; whether that company holds from paramount chiefs concessions covering an area of upwards of 4,000 square miles in the Protectorate of Sierra Leone for ninety-nine years from 1901; whether the chairman of that company was Governor of Sierra Leone from 1894 to 1900; whether he can say what is the nature of these concessions, and whether they are such as to give the company the monopoly of rubber production in that area; and whether these concessions have been approved by the Governor of Sierra Leone or the Colonial Office.
  SIR J. JARDINE: At the same time may I ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether the notice of the Colonial Office has been drawn to the statements made in the prospectus filed by the British West Africa Produce Company, Limited, dated 10th October, 1906, under the name of the chairman, Sir Frederic Cardew, described as Governor of Sierra Leone from 1894 to 1900, and other directors, regarding twenty concessions of agricultural and trading rights relating to territories covering an area of upwards of 4,000 square miles in the Protectorate of Sierra Leone; whether he can state how many paramount chiefs granted these concessions; whether they are valid without the sanction of the Government of Sierra Leone; whether these chiefs have become individually responsible to the limited company for the supply of native labourers; and whether they may lawfully force natives to cooperation in labour by virtue of these documents.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The attention of the Secretary of State for the Colonies has been directed to the prospectus of the British West Africa Produce Company, Limited. The concessions in question were not granted or approved by the Government, but the Colonial Office was aware from correspondence with Mr. Brunner that they had been obtained. Sir F. Cardew, who is named as chairman of the company, was Governor of Sierra Leone from 1894 to 1900. The concessions appear to be of the character of agreements with chiefs to the effect that they will cultivate and will sell only to the concessionaires certain agricultural products, not being products already cultivated in their territories, the seeds of which are to be supplied to them by the concessionaires. It is not stated that they give the concessionaires any monopoly or exclusive rights of cultivation or of rubber production in those areas. The concessions appear to be of a kind which does not, under the law of the Protectorate, require the approval of the Governor of Sierra Leone or the Secretary of State for the Colonies. With regard to the supply of native labour, I may say that the chiefs can only act in accordance with their rocognised authority under native law and custom, which does not enable them to requisition labour except for certain established public purposes and to an extent, strictly limited by the consent of their people, upon the chiefs' own farms. These concessions in no way enlarge or affect the powers of the chiefs in regard to such labour. Any chief abusing his powers and oppressing his subjects by illegal forced labour is liable to removal from his office by the Governor, whose duty it-will be to take care that no such abuse occurs.
  MR. SMEATON: May I ask whether in order to put a stop to objectionable transactions of this kind, the hon. Gentleman will consider the advisability, when any man is appointed to a governorship of a colony, of imposing a condition on retirement from the governorship that he shall not undertake transactions of this kind or exploit the resources of his colony on the Stock Exchange.
  MR. CHURCHILL: As to whether these transactions are objectionable or

  1323
  not, I am not led to a conclusion by any information put at the disposal of the Colonial Office. If the hon. Member has any information which can prove that these proposals are objectionable in their character, perhaps he will give me the opportunity of showing it to the Secretary of State. As to the general question of persons employed in the public service being controlled after leaving the public service, I must have notice of the Question before I can say whether any general rule can be laid down.
  SIR. J. JARDINE: Can the hon. Gentleman explain what individual responsibility to the company these chiefs have undertaken?
  MR. CHURCHILL: I have explained that the chiefs are to sell to the company the agricultural products of certain seeds which are to be given to them by the company. That appears to me to be an operation which is not in itself improper or objectionable, and I think we should hinder the development of Nigeria if we excluded private enterprise when it does not conflict with the already strict regulations which the Government have laid down.
  SIR J. JARDINE: But in what way live they responsible?
  MR. CHURCHILL: The chiefs are responsible in the same way in which every person is responsible for a contract into which he enters.

  Coolie Labour Return.
  MR. NIELD: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies which of the Colonies have not yet replied to the request of the Colonial Office to be furnished with the necessary information to enable the Return as to Coolie Labour to be presented to the House in accordance with the Order of February last; and what steps have been taken by the Colonial Office to expedite the furnishing of the required particulars.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Since 29thOctober further information has been received, and the only reply now required is that from the State of Western Australia. All Governments which had not replied
  1324
  within a reasonable time to the despatch which was sent to them on the subject in March last were reminded by telegraph.

  The Transvaal and the Finance Act.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: On behalf of the hon. Member for the City of London, I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies why the provisions of Section 20 of the Finance Act of 1894 have not been made applicable to the Transvaal.
  MR. CHURCHILL: Section 20 of the Finance Act, 1894, cannot be applied to the Transvaal unless and until the law governing the levying of Estate Duty in that Colony has been modified. It was found impracticable to introduce the necessary legislation during the late session of the Legislative Council, and the question will, therefore, remain to be considered by the new Legislature.

  Trinidad.
  MR. SUMMERBELL: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if his attention has been called to the starvation due to unemployment existing at Trinidad; and, if so, what action the Government has taken, especially in relation to the demand for labour by the Isthmian Canal Commission and the importation of labourers from India to compete with the West Indian labourers.
  MR. CHURCHILL: I am not aware that there is any such distress as the hon. Member refers to, resulting from want of employment in Trinidad; but in view of the private communications I have received from the hon. Member an inquiry will be addressed to the Governor on the subject.

  Coolie Prisoners in the Transvaal.
  MR. MACKARNESS: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether a Return has been received by the Secretary of State from the Transvaal Government showing that on the 30th June last there were confined in the Transvaal prisons about seven times as many Chinese coolies as either Europeans or natives in proportion to the total numbers of the Chinese, Europeans, and natives, respectively, in the Colony and, if so, whether any part of the extra

  1325
  cost incurred by this excess of Chinese crime has been borne by the mine-owners who imported the criminals, or whether it has all fallon upon the general taxpayers of the Colony.
  MR. CHURCHILL: For the purposes of comparison it is necessary not to contrast the Chinese with the total white population or with the total native population, but with the adult males, and so considered, the European and native rates would appear to be about six per 1,000, or a third of the Chinese rate. The great majority of the offences of the Chinese are breaches of disciplinary regulations which are not in themselves criminal acts, but taking more serious crimes as being those represented by sentences of six months or more, the Chinese rate would appear for such serious crimes to be on about the same level as the European and native rate, the Chinese rate being 4·4 per 1,000. The Legislature of the Colony has not hitherto made any special arrangement for throwing the whole or a part of the cost of Chinese crime upon the mine-owners.

  Proposed West African Council.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies whether, in view of the desirability of continuity of policy and administration in our West African Colonies, His Majesty's Government will take into consideration the advisability of appointing a West African Council principally composed of distinguished officials, retired or otherwise, to confer with the Colonial Office.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The appointment of such a committee has been suggested from time to time; but the Secretary of State does not feel convinced that it is necessary. The joint West African Council of the Associated Chambers of Commerce of Manchester, Liverpool, and London, which meets monthly at the Colonial Office affords convenient opportunities for the free discussion of commercial questions between the representatives of commercial interests, and those of the Colonial Office. I should deprecate in the present state of Nigerian development the creation of more elaborate or comprehensive machinery.

  Compulsory Labour in Southern Nigeria.
  MR. CATHCART WASON: I beg to ask the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies if the Southern Nigeria Proclamation, No. 15, 1903, is still in force; if, under its provisions, compulsory labour without payment can be demanded by district commissioners; and, if so, whether His Majesty's Government will insist that for the future fair payment will be made to the chiefs for all labour requisitioned from them.
  MR. CHURCHILL: The proclamation referred to is still in force. Under its provisions compulsory labour without payment can be demanded by district commissioners. The obligation to give gratuitous labour for public purposes is one established and recognised throughout West Africa. The only possible substitute for it would be the imposition of rates payable in money, as in this country. The introduction of this change is not at present, in Lord Elgin's opinion, either practicable or expedient in West Africa.
  MR. J. WARD: Has the present Secretary for the Colonies given sanction to any such proclamation demanding forced unpaid labour as suggested in the Question, or were these proclamations issued before he came into office?
  MR. CHURCHILL: They belong to an anterior date.

  Baghdad Railway Project.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any further action has been taken, such as he can communicate to the House, regarding British participation in the Baghdad Railway project; whether the Government has acquiesced in the raising of the Turkish Customs by 3 per cent.; and, if so, upon what conditions.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Sir EDWARD GREY, Northumberland, Berwick): The Answer to the first part of the hon. Member's Question is in the negative. With regard to the Turkish Customs negotiations are still in progress, and until they are concluded I cannot say

  1327
  what the result will be. Certain conditions have been stated by all the Powers as necessary to their consent.

  Chinese Customs.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the Chinese Government has cancelled or amended its edict introducing certain changes into the administration of the Chinese Customs.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The reply to the hon. Member's inquiry is in the negative. I would also refer him to my replies of the 25th and 26th ultimo relative to the edict of May 9th, to the effect that the edict has not hitherto changed the administration by Sir R. Hart.†
  † See Cols. 411, 412, 516, 517.

  Piracy in the Canton Delta.
  *MR. REES: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether any information has been received of the increase of piracy in the Canton Delta; and, if so, whether action is contemplated in order to the protection of commerce in these waters.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: Reports of several cases of piracy and attempted piracy in the Canton Delta have lately been received by His Majesty's Government. His Majesty's Minister at Peking has been authorised to make representations to the Chinese Government, with a view to the adoption of measures for the suppression of these outrages, and to the better policing of the waterways.

  The New Hebrides.
  MR. FELL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if a Convention has been signed with France with reference to the New Hebrides; and, if so, whether he will lay such Convention upon the Table, with any correspondence between this Government and the Colonies of New Zealand, Queensland, and New South Wales upon the matter.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The text of the Convention will be laid at once, and correspondence with the Colonies concerned will be laid subsequently as soon as it is complete.
  † See Cols. 411, 412 516, 517.

  Abyssinia.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, whether the consent of the Emperor Menelik is still withheld to the agreement concluded between Great Britain, Italy, and France with reference to Abyssinia.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: The validity of the agreement between the three Powers is not dependent upon Menelik's consent. The agreement was communicated to Menelik with the object of showing him that his interests were not adversely affected by the arrangements which the three Powers had made between themselves.
  MR. ASHLEY: Is it necessary to obtain his consent before the agreement comes into force.
  SIR EDWARD GREY: No. Sir.

  Case of Jeremiah Power.
  MR. THORNE: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will consider the possibility of reducing the sentence on Jeremiah Power who was sentenced on the 23rd instant at the Old Bailey to six months imprisonment with hard labour for stealing some meat, in view of the circumstances under which the offence was committed, and the fact that the police admitted that there was no previous conviction against him.
  *THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE HOME DEPARTMENT (Mr. GLADSTONE,): I have made inquiry into this case, but find no ground at present for advising interference with the sentence. The case was more serious than would appear from the newspaper report and the statements made by the prisoner in Court are not in accordance with fact. He had been convicted of theft before.

  Rats in Holloway Prison.
  DR. COOPER: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been directed to a statement made by one of the women recently committed to Hollaway Prison in default that she was annoyed at night by rats running about her cell; whether he is in

  1329
  a position to state whether any sanitary authority has made an inspection into the sanitary condition and drainage of the prison; if not, will he say who is responsible for the sanitary condition of the building; whether the bye-laws and regulations made under The Public Health Act (London), 1891, are carried out; and when the last inspection into the sanitary condition of the prison was made.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: Inquiries have been made as to the alleged presence of rats in this prisoner's cell. The cell and the shaft whence the rats were alleged to issue, were at once examined by the engineer, and no sign of their presence could be detected. I am making further inquiries. The Courts have decided that the Public Health Acts do not apply to prisons as being the property of the Crown. The responsibility for the sanitary condition of the prison rests with the Commissioners of Prisons; and a regular and careful sanitary inspection of prisons is strictly carried out by the staff of the Commissioners. The last sanitary inspection of Holloway took place on the 14th September last.
  DR. COOPER: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that two ladies of unimpeachable veracity—Mrs. Pethick Lawrence and Mrs. Montefiore—both stated that they were annoyed at night by the presence of rats in their cells?
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I have already said that I am making further inquiries.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: Will the right hon. Gentleman take into consideration the advisability of purchasing an active cat?
  MR. J. H. ROBERTSON: Was not the statement actually made that the rats were in the infirmary, and not in the cells?
  *MR. GLADSTONE: I will make inquiry.

  Local Prisons.
  MR. STAVELEY-HILL: I beg to ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will state the number
  1330
  and names of local prisons in England which are at present used for other than the temporary detention of persons sentenced to penal servitude; and whether the officers of such prisons are paid on the same scale as those of the recognised convict prisons.
  *MR. GLADSTONE: Convicts serve the preliminary period of separate confinement, which varies from three to nine months, at the following prisons— Chelmsford, Dorchester, Exeter, Gloucester, Lewes, Stafford. In addition to this, certain convicts selected for their good behaviour, who were sentenced in the north of England, serve their last year at Wakefield. Convicts in local prisons are in charge of the ordinary local prison staff, who are on a different scale of pay from the staff of convict prisons. These convicts being, except at Wake-field, in cellular confinement, and not employed in parties or gangs in the open, do not present the same difficulty of control as in the regular convict prisons, and the duty of supervising them does not differ from that of supervising ordinary local prisoners.

  Salisbury Railway Disaster.
  MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade upon what rule or regulation, either of the railway company or of the Board of Trade, the inspector charged upon the guard in the Salisbury disaster the duty and responsibility for stopping the train when running at excessive speed.
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF TRADE (Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE,): The rule applicable would appear to be number 177 (b) of the Railway Company's Rules and Regulations.

  Midland Goods Trains.
  MR. HUDSON: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the action of the Midland Railway Company in placing untrained men in charge of goods trains without their having passed the usual examination; and whether, in view of the danger involved to the lives of the men employed, he will cause inquiry to be made into the matter.
  Mr. LLOYD-GEORGE: No, Sir, I have no information to the effect suggested, but I am communicating the hon. Member's Question to the railway company mentioned and inviting their observations.

  The Imperial Institute.
  MR. HAROLD COX: I beg to ask the Secretary to the Treasury what was the total amount contributed by the princes and people of India to the cost of building the Imperial Institute; what was the total cost of the building; and what proportion of that total cost is represented by the buildings now used by the University of London.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The total amount of the donations received from India for the foundation (building and endowment) of the Imperial Institute was £114,528. Of this sum a small portion was specifically given for additions to the building, the major proportion was paid into the general fund, and it is not possible to make any definite appointment as between building and endowment. The total amount of money expended in building the Institute, including plant, fittings and furniture, etc., was £354,753. The proportions of the whole building at present occupied respectively by the Imperial Institute and the London University may be roughly estimated at two-fifths and three-fifths.

  Vacant Railway and Canal Commissionership.
  MR. WHITEHEAD: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether his attention has been called to the inconvenience to litigants caused by the delay in appointing to the vacant post of Railway and Canal Commissioner; and whether an appointment will be made during the present sittings of the Law Courts.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: The Answer to the first part of the Question is in the negative. In the only case in which it was represented to us that a speedy hearing appeared to be necessary I appointed a temporary Commissioner in accordance with the Act, and I should be prepared to take a similar course should the necessity arise before a permanent appointment is made. I hope,
  1332
  however, that a permanent appointment will be made shortly.

  District Railway Fares.
  MR. BOWERMAN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade if his attention has been called to the increases in fares on the District Railway, which press heavily upon working-class families; and if he will cause inquiry to be made into the matter, and appoint a committee to make recommendations thereon.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Yes, Sir, I have had this matter under careful consideration. The question whether the workmen's fares now charged by the railway company are unduly high is one that can be dealt with under the Cheap Trains Act, 1883. I am informed by the London County Council that their Housing Committee is in correspondence with the railway company, and that failing a satisfactory settlement, the Council will be recommended to make a representation to the Board of Trade under the Act. Full investigation would then be made into all the circumstances either by the Board of Trade or by the Railway and Canal Commissioners.

  Trade Combines.
  MR. CHIOZZA MONEY: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that Messrs. J. and P. Coats, Limited, by combining the sewing cotton businesses of Messrs. Coats, of Paisley, Messrs. Clark & Company, Messrs. Jonas Brook & Brothers, and Messrs. James Chadwick & Brother, have secured a virtual monopoly of the sewing cotton trade of the United Kingdom; that foreign competition is-non-existent in this trade; that it is practically impossible for new British competition to arise; that the cotton trust makes a regular profit of about £3,000,000 per annum on a capital of £10,000,000; and whether, under these circumstances, he can see his way to legislate to secure public control of a trade which affects every working woman in the country. I beg further to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he is aware that in the wall-paper manufacture, a trade little affected by foreign competition, a combination of makers has been formed under the title of Wallpaper Manufacturers, Limited, which

  1333
  absorbed the businesses carried on by C. and J. G. Potter, the Darwen Paper Staining Company, Potter & Company, Huntingdon Frères, the Anaglypta Company, Lightbown, Aspinall & Company, Allan, Cockshut & Company, the Ligno mar Company, Carlisle and Clegg, Osborn and Shearman, John Trumble & Sons, Walker Carver & Company, Limited, W. G. Wilkins & Company, Limited,Mitchell, Arnott & Company, Limited, and twelve other makers; that this great amalgamation amounts to a virtual monopoly of the trade, and that it is subversive of the public interest; and whether he can see his way to take steps to secure public control of the monopoly.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: Perhaps I may answer these two Questions together. There is no monopoly of the sewing cotton trade in this or any other country. There are over twenty independent makers of the article whose capital amounts to millions of pounds, including important limited companies and manufacturers who have been in existence for more than half a century, and between whom and Coats there is no connection. The position which Messrs. Coats have established for themselves in various markets for cotton sewing thread is well known. I have no official information as to their profits, or as to the extent to which the Wall-Paper Manufacturers, Limited, have established a virtual monopoly as suggested in the Question. I find, however, that imports of printed paperhangings amounted last year to £133,000 compared with only £34,000 in 1894, the last previous year for which these imports were separately recorded. As regards the last part of the Question I can add nothing to my reply given last Monday†.
  MR. CHTOZZA MONEY: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he has given consideration to the fact that the combination controlled by Messrs. Coats does, as a matter of fact, enjoy what I say is virtually a monopoly? I mean that it absorbs about nine-tenths of the trade. With regard to wall-paper, the amount imported is so insignificant that it has no bearing on the Question.
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is making a debating speech.
  † See col. 702.

  Inspection of Weights and Measures.
  MR. BEETRAM: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Trade whether he has considered the expense which will be thrown upon the rates, particularly in agricultural and thinly populated counties, by the requirements of Regulation 1 of the regulations now under the consideration of the Board of Trade, which involve the annual visit of an inspector to the premises or place of trade of every trader, and the verification of all weights and measures in use for trade found at such premises or place; whether he has any official Reports showing that the present system of surprise visits does not afford a sufficient control of weights and measures; and, if not, on what ground the new and more stringent regulation is based; and whether the Board of Trade are advised that farmers are traders within the meaning of the Weights and Measures Acts.
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: An annual visit to places where weights and measures are in use was already required by the model regulations drawn up by the Board of Trade under the Weights and Measures Act, 1889, and the present draft regulation under the Act of 1904 differs chiefly in empowering the Department to exempt districts where an annual visit would be inconvenient. The Question whether fanners are traders for the purposes of the Weights and Measures Acts can only be answered by a reference to the definition of 'trade' in Section 19 of the Act of 1878. As a general rule a farmer's dealings will no doubt come within that definition.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that, for instance, in a county like Hertfordshire this change will involve doubling the staff of inspectors, and add hundreds a year to the rates?
  MR. LLOYD-GEORGE: I think the right hon. Gentleman has been misinformed. The change will have a contrary tendency.
  COLONEL LOCKWOOD: Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will let me show him the papers.

  Grant for the Unemployed.
  MR. ASHLEY: I beg to ask the President of the Local Government Board what portion of the grant to the unemployed will be allocated to the county of Lancashire.
  MR. HAROLD COX: Before the right hon. Gentleman allocates any of this money, will he take care to ensure that none of it will be used for pauperising purposes?
  THE PRESIDENT OF THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT BOARD (Mr. JOHN BURNS,): My views on this Question are sufficiently well-known not to require any further answer. It is not proposed to allocate any specified portion of the grant to particular counties. The object of the grant is to provide a means whereby the funds of the Central (Unemployed) Body in London, and of Distress Committees elsewhere, derived from voluntary contributions may be supplemented in cases where there may be exceptional need for assistance in the coming winter in meeting the cost of providing or contributing to the provision of temporary work. It appears to me that some of the Distress Committees in Lancashire will probably require such assistance, and in these cases I have informed them that I should be prepared, should they deem it necessary to apply for assistance from the grant, to give consideration to the application.
  MR. THORNE: Has any of the money been allocated to distress committees?
  MR. JOHN BURNS: Some of the money has already been allocated, and the process is still going on.

  Betting by Telegram.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he has made, or will make, any computation showing the loss of revenue to the Post Office should it be enacted by the Street Betting Bill that it is illegal to transmit telegrams relating to betting transactions through the Post Office.
  THE POSTMASTER GENERAL (Mr. SYDNEY BUXTON,): I have not made such a computation.

  Betting by Telephone.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General what steps he proposes to take to prevent betting by telephone over the telephone systems controlled by the Post Office.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: It would not be possible to prevent the use of a telephone system for the purpose of betting, without instituting a general censorship by means of a staff employed in listening to all conversations, who would also have to decide what was and what was not a betting transaction. I am afraid I do not see my way to undertake such a responsibility.

  Private Letter-Boxes in Scottish Post Offices.
  SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether the increase of the fee for the use of a private box in the post offices in Scotland, from one guinea to two guineas a year, has led to a decrease in the number hired, and a consequent loss of revenue, and to what amount, and what are the reasons for this increase of the fee; and whether he can see his way to revert to the smaller fee, and thus allay the dissatisfaction which has been caused.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: The number of private boxes has somewhat decreased since the alteration of charges came into operation. Formerly the charge had not covered the extra cost incurred. Precise figures relating to the number of private boxes in Scotland before and after the change made in the scale of charges are not at present available.

  Re-direction of in Ps' Telegrams.
  MR. JOYCE: I beg to ask the Postmaster-General whether he is aware of the fact that telegrams sent to Members of Parliament at their own homes and having to be re-directed to the House, when Parliament is sitting and Members are in attendance, are charged for at an extra rate for such delivery; and whether he can see his way, under those circumstances, to have such telegrams delivered without any extra charge.
  MR. SYDNEY BUXTON: All redirected telegrams are liable, if any additional service is performed, to an

  1337
  additional charge of 6d. if the two addresses are within the same town and, if the addresses are in different towns, to the full inland rate. Each London postal district is considered a separate town for this purpose. I have no power to discriminate in favour of Members of Parliament.

  Wakefield School Attendance Prosecution.
  MR. SNOWDEN: I beg to ask the President of the Board of Education, if his attention has been called to the prosecution, on 8th October, at the Wakefield Police Court, of Alfred Whiteley, for not sending his two children regularly to school, and to the statement of the attendance officer that the managers of the Cathedral School had in the past allowed certain children to attend free as an act of grace; whether, in view of the difficulty existing in the city, of parents being able to get their children into convenient schools without paying fees, owing to the determination of the managers of such schools to keep them select by charging fees, he will cause inquiries to be made into the state of affairs in the matter of charging fees; and, further, if he will consider the question of making all places free in all schools supported entirely by public money.
  THE PEESIDENT OF THE BOARD OF EDUCATION (Mr. BIRRELL,): No information has reached me either of the prosecution or of the alleged statement of the attendance officer mentioned in the Question; a complaint was received by the Board from Alfred Whiteley in September last at being required to pay fees for the admission of his child to the school named, and on this being brought to the notice of the local education authority a free place was offered to him by the local education authority in St. Andrew's National School about a quarter of a mile from his house. The facts at present before me do not, I think, constitute a sufficient case for an inquiry of the nature suggested. It does not appear that there is any need to consider alterations in the existing law relating to school fees, since it is entirely in the option of the Local Education Authority to require the discontinuance of fees in any Public Elementary School maintained
  1338
  by them, and, as was pointed out to the hon. Member in reply to a Question asked by him on the 12th July,† it is the duty of every local education authority to provide a sufficient amount of public school accommodation without payment of foes in every part of their area.
  † See (4) Debates, clx., 1063.

  The Mall Improvement.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: I beg to ask the First Commissioner of Works if he will ascertain and intimate to this House what arrangements, if any, are being made to remove the three houses at Charing Cross, the removal of which is necessary to complete the Charing Cross end of the Mall improvement; and how the requisite funds will be provided.
  THE FIRST COMMISSIONER OF WORKS (Mr. HARCOURT,): I am not aware that any arrangements are being made to remove any houses at Charing Cross. This is in my opinion a Metropolitan matter, and as such appertains to the business of the London County Council.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: Are we to understand that the right hon. Gentleman intends to leave the matter entirely in the hands of the London County Council.
  MR. HARCOURT: Yes, Sir.

  Rex v. Fowler.
  LORD R. CECIL: I beg to ask Mr. Attorney-General whether one Frank Attwood Huckle was employed by the Treasury to obtain statements from witnesses proposed to be called on behalf of the Crown in the case of Rex v. Fowler; whether Huckle is the secretary of the Reigate Liberal Association and acted on behalf of the hon. Member for Reigate as his election agent at the late election; whether it is usual for the Treasury to employ election agents to get up evidence in a criminal case; and, if not, why the usual course was departed from on this occasion.
  The following Questions on the same subject also appeared on the Paper—
  MR. COURTHOPE: To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether
  † See (4) Debates, elx., 1063.

  1339
  one Frank Attwood Huckle approached the Treasury in May last, five months after the offences alleged against Fowler in Hex v. Fowler; whether any inquiries were then made by the Treasury as to the bona fides of Huckle; and whether it was then ascertained that Huckle had acted as the election agent of the hon. Member for the Reigate Division of Surrey.
  MR. BRIDGEMAN: To ask Mr. Attorney-General why seven months were allowed to elapse before summonses in the case of Rex v. Fowler were applied for at the Oxted Petty Sessions, on 13th August last, on behalf of Taylor and Flood; and whether the Treasury had all the information, upon which it was decided to proceed, in February, 1906.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the Treasury solicitor was aware at the time the prosecution of Fowler was undertaken that reductions of the staff of Ling-field racecourse had been decided upon by the owners thereof in 1903; that in January, 1904, the first reduction of staff took place; that further reductions were decided upon on the 16th March, 1905, and in July, 1905; and that on the 14th December, 1905, and the 23rd January, 1906, the dismissal of some of the prosecutors in Rex v. Fowler was ordered by the representatives of the owners, to whose orders Fowler was amenable.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether one Taylor, a prosecutor in the case of Rex v. Fowler, was called as a witness by the Treasury to prove a conversation in a public-house, upon which a charge brought by the Treasury was based; whether Taylor is known to be and admits he is a deaf man; and whether Richardson, a prosecutor in Rex v. Fowler, has on several occasions been convicted of drunkenness.
  MR. CLAUDE HAY: To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the statement of one William Richardson, a prosecutor in the case of Rex v. Fowler, was taken by one Frank Attwood Huckle upon instructions received by Huckle from the Treasury: and whether the
  1340
  statement of one William Arthur Kenward was made to one Hood and sent to Frank Attwood Huckle.
  MR. HICKS BEACH: To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether one Frank Attwood Huckle paid the expenses to London of the prosecutors, Hood and Taylor, in the case of Rex v. Fowler, and took Hood and Taylor to the Treasury.
  MR. ASHLEY: To ask Mr. Attorney-General whether the statement of William Richardson in Rex v. Fowler was made, on instructions received from the Treasury, to one Frank Attwood Huckle; and whether the statement of William Arthur Kenward was made to Hood and sent to Huckle.
  *THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON, Leeds, S.): I have communicated with the Public Prosecutor, and he informs me that the prosecution followed the ordinary course. We received a complaint from Mr. Huckle, who had been employed as agent for the Liberal candidate, that statements had been made to him that certain of the electors had been intimidated. Mr. Huckle was asked to produce the materials on which the complaint rested. At his suggestion to the Public Prosecutor, some of the witnesses who complained of intimidation were invited to attend the Treasury. They did so and were examined in person, and their evidence was taken by experienced members of the official staff. I have seen that evidence and I think it undoubtedly constituted a very strong statement as to language of intimidation having been used. Mr. Huckle was then asked whether that was the sole evidence he had to produce. He thought there were other persons who might be able to give corroborative evidence, and he furnished further statements of other witnesses with that object. The whole of the evidence was considered for a considerable period. I was asked to say whether the Public Prosecutor ought to refrain from prosecuting, having regard merely to the difficulty of obtaining a conviction. I told him that he must consider the case on its merits; that he must form a conclusion as to whether the evidence was sufficient and satisfactory, and that if the conclusion was favourable the case ought to be taken

  1341
  before the Court without reference to any difficulty which might attend obtaining convictions in cases of this class. The matter was considered by the Public Prosecutor and he brought the case before the magistrates. Of course he could not anticipate the defence, but the prosecution was not hastily undertaken. There were ample materials to support it.
  LORD R. CECIL: Was Mr. Huckle employed to obtain statements from witnesses called on behalf of the Crown?
  *SIR JOHN WALTON: No; only in the sense that on being asked whether the evidence he first produced exhausted his case. He then produced two other witnesses. When an election offence has been committed the person likely to complain is the election agent, who would naturally hear of matters involving a violation of the law.
  LORD R. CECIL: Was it suggested to him that he should obtain a further statement?
  *SIR JOHN WALTON: No. He was only asked whether the first evidence produced was the only evidence.
  VISCOUNT TURNOUR: Will the right hon. Gentleman lay on the Table a copy of the statement furnished by Huckle?
  *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the whole correspondence was privileged, and its publication would be contrary to the public interest.
  MR. CLAUDE HAYpressed for a detailed Answer to his Questions.
  *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid the Public Prosecutor informed him that Taylor when before him appeared to be in full possession of the sense of hearing. As to whether one of the witnesses had previously been convicted of drunkenness he thought that if in an election inquiry all persons who had been convicted of drunkenness were to be ineligible as witnesses it would be impossible ever to secure a conviction.
  *MR. COURTHOPE: Why were seven months allowed to elapse before the summonses were applied for?
  *SIR JOHN WALTON: As a matter of fact, only three and a quarter months were allowed to elapse, and that period was devoted to a careful sifting of the evidence, to ensure that no hasty and ill-considered prosecution should take place.

  Ecclesiastical Commission Funds.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: I beg to ask the hon. Member for East Bristol, as Church Estates Commissioner, how much of the £265,767 17s. 7d. mentioned on page 21 of the fifty-eighth Report of the Ecclesiastical Commissioners represents the rent of agricultural land; what is the area of the lands producing such rent; whether these estates are managed direct or by agency; and who are the agents, if any, and what moneys have been paid to them during each of the last five years for agency work in connection with this agricultural land and also for all agency work.
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: The gross rents of agricultural lands amount to approximately £250,000 out of the sum of £265,767 17s. 7d., the remainder being chiefly rents of house property in provincial towns and places. The area of the agricultural lands is about 250,000 acres. The Estates of the Commissioners are under the management of the Estates Committee and two firms of land agents are employed, viz., Messrs Clutton, of No. 5, Great College Street, Westminster, and Messrs. Smiths Gore & Co., of No. 3, Little College Street, Westminster. Each firm employs at their own expense local sub-agents or representatives where necessary. The remuneration of each firm for agency and receivership in respect of agricultural property is a commission of 4 per cent. on the rents, and this covers also their services for superintendence of repairs and improvements and new buildings in all but exceptional cases. The total of the payments made by the Commissioners for agency in respect of all the estates vested in them for their common fund is set out each year on the other side of the account from which the figure quoted in the Question was taken.
  MR. WEDGWOOD: How long has this agency existed?
  MR. CHARLES HOBHOUSE: The payments extend over a very long series of years.

  Traction Engine Traffic in Roxburghshire.
  SIR J. JARDINE: I beg to ask the Secretary for Scotland if he is aware of the number of recent prosecutions in Roxburghshire and elsewhere of users of traction engines on the roads for not having the third man walking in front of the engine; and whether he will consider the question of dispensing with this requirement in circumstances where it is dispensed with in England and Wales.
  THE SECRETARY FOR SCOTLAND (Mr. SINCLAIR,): This matter has already been brought to my notice, and I will consider the suggestion of my hon. friend's Question.

  Tobacco Growing in Ireland.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland, how great is the area of land in Ireland under tobacco cultivation; and if there are applications for leave to extend the area; and whether there is any objection to this extension.
  THE CHIEF SECRETARY FOR IRELAND (Mr. BRYCE,): During the past season tobacco was grown on seventy-seven and a half acres by persons who were granted the necessary authority by the Board of Inland Revenue on the recommendation of the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction. Applications were also received from other persons, some of whom applied for permission to grow tobacco over a large area; but as the original concession had been granted solely for experimental purposes and as the area already under cultivation was adequate for these purposes, His Majesty's Government did not feel able to assent to any development of these experiments upon a larger area.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in the opinion of many experts the area now under cultivation is not sufficient to carry out the experiments fully, and will he consider the advisability of extending the area if applications are made by responsible persons?
  MR. BRYCE: Extending very much the present area is a question which touches revenue and should be addressed to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: Then I will ask the Prime Minister if he will consult the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and see whether it is possible to extend the area—in view of the fact that the very least we expect from a Liberal Government is to be allowed to grow tobacco in Ireland.
  THE PRIME MINISTER AND FIRST LORD OF THE TREASURY (Sir H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN, Stirling Burghs): I do not know how I come into it. My hon. friend had better address his Question to the Chancellor of the Exchequer. A first-hand Answer is better than mine would be.
  MR. WILLIAM REDMOND: The right hon. Gentleman comes into it because I rely upon his good nature.

  Aghanville Estate, Geashill.
  MR. DELANY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a memorial has been received by the Estates Commissioners, signed by occupiers of uneconomic holdings and the sons of small farmers and labourers in the locality, praying for the purchase of Aghanville Estate, near Geashill, for re-distribution amongst them; whether he is aware that this ranch of 500 acres was untenanted for the past twenty-five years and was taken by an eleven months grazier. at the beginning of the present year; can he say upon what terms the planter is in occupation; and what steps the Government propose taking to deal with the taking of untenanted land by graziers.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that they received a memorial to the effect mentioned in March last. The memorial related to the untenanted land on the estate of Lady Guise at Killeigh, which would appear to be identical with that described in the Question as the Aghanville Estate. The Commissioners have ascertained that this land has been sold to Mr. James Dunne, in whose occupation it had been

  1345
  upon a grazing tenancy. The Commissioners have made a provisional otter for the purchase from Mr. Dunne of about 100 acres of the land, and negotiations are proceeding. I have no information as to how long the land had been untenanted.

  Limerick Fishery District.
  MR. LUNDON: On behalf of the hon. Member for Limerick I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland if he is aware that the Board of Conservators for the Limerick fishery district have applied to the Board of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for Ireland for financial aid; if he can say whether the accounts of this fishery board are subject to public audit; and, if not, will he ask the Treasury to order a public audit of such accounts for the past four years, to apply the same order to all Irish fishery boards, before any grants in aid are given to such boards, and to arrange that at such audits any licence holder may ask such questions in connection with such accounts as he may consider proper.
  MR. BRYCE: The Board of Conservators for the Limerick district have applied to the Department of Agriculture and Technical Instruction for financial assistance. The accounts of the Board of Conservators are audited by an auditor appointed by such Board, but they are not subject to what is technically called "public" audit. There does not appear to be anything in the Fishery Acts which would authorise the Treasury to order a public audit of the accounts in question.

  Sir Henry Burke's Estate, Loughrea.
  MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether the Estates Commissioners have received agreements to purchase from the tenants of Sir Henry Burke's estate, Marble Hill, Loughrea, in the districts of Leitrim and Knock Ash; if so, whether these agreements were contingent upon the sale to the Commissioners of the grazing lands of Grallagh and Traskernagh; and will he explain the cause of the delay in not taking over these farms for distribution amongst the small tenants.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that purchase agreements have been lodged with them in respect of the Leitrim and Knockash portions of Sir Henry Burke's estate. These agreements do not contain any conditions as to the sale to the Commissioners of the lands of Grallagh or Traskernagh. The vendor, however, has expressed his willingness to sell the untenanted land in Grallagh to the tenants approved of by the Commissioners, and the Commissioners inspector is at present preparing a scheme for the division of these lands. He has also been directed to report as to the lands of Traskernagh.

  Galway Grazing Land.
  MR. DUFFY: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether a request was made to the Estates Commissioners by Lord Ardilaun to purchase the grazing lands of Slieverue, Moyode, and Athenry; and having regard to the urgency of dealing with a large number of small cotter tenants living on two and three acres of land in the district of Moyode, will he instruct the Commissioners to proceed with all possible despatch to the consideration of Lord Ardilaun's request.
  MR. BRYCE: The Estates Commissioners inform me that in June last they approached Lord Ardilaun as to the sale of his untenanted land, and in September last his agent lodged with them a map of the townlands of Moyode and Moyode Demesne, comprising 1,425 acres of untenanted land. The Commissioners have ordered a preliminary inspection, and as soon as the inspectors report has been received they will consider the question of making an offer for purchase.

  Clifden Disturbance.
  MR. SLOAN: I beg to ask the Chief Secretary to the Lord-Lieutenant of Ireland whether he is aware that on 1st September, at Clifden, a number of evangelists were assaulted with sticks and stones; whether he can say if the attack was made in the presence of the police; and, if so, how many arrests were made?
  MR. BRYCE: It is, I regret to say, the fact that on the 1st September, at

  1347
  Clifden, the Rev. Mr. Harpur, an evangelist, was assaulted with sticks and stones. The police were not present in the first instance, as they were not aware that Mr. Harpur, who was perviously unknown to them, was in the village or about to preach. The reverend gentleman commenced his service in the market place, where street preaching has for some years past been prohibited. Upon hearing of the disturbance the police at once hurried to the spot for Mr. Harpur's protection. One arrest was made at the time. The man arrested and five others were subsequently prosecuted by the police, Mr. Harpur having declined to prosecute. Two of the defendants were fined, and the remaining four were discharged.

  The Appointment of County Magistrates
  SIR ROBERT HOBART: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether as the appointment of borough magistrates is made directly by the Lord Chancellor without having recourse to investigations by lords-lieutenant or other similar authorities as to the qualification of persons so to be appointed, His Majesty's Government will agree that the same procedure should be followed by the Lord Chancellor in the case of the appointment of county magistrates, without differentiation between one class of magistrate and another?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: The Lord-Chancellor informs me that he cannot approve of any change by which he would be deprived of the assistance of lords-lieutenant. In boroughs it is always easy to obtain from most competent quarters all necessary information as to the qualifications of candidates for the office. In counties it is often difficult, and experience has proved the absolute necessity of full inquiries before names are placed on the Commission.

  Minister of Commerce.
  MR. D. A. THOMAS: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether the introduction of a Bill to establish a bureau of a Minister of Commerce and Industry, on the lines of the Bill introduced last session by the late Government, forms part of the programme of the present Government; and, if so, whether provision will be made in the Bill to give the proper
  1348
  minister the status of a Secretary of State, and pay him an annual salary of £5,000 a year; and when the Bill is likely to be introduced.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: No, Sir. His Majesty's Government have come to no decision in the matter.
  SIR JOHN RANDLES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware there is amongst the commercial classes in this country a very large consensus of opinion as to the urgency and importance of such a minister being appointed.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I am aware of that.
  *MR. R. DUNCAN: May I ask if the matter is under active consideration?
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: I do not know what "active consideration" means. I am afraid that there are a good many questions like this that are constantly under our view, but sometimes they are dormant.
  *MR. R. DUNCAN: May I say that "active consideration" means consideration intended to lead to action?

  Commission on the Feeble-Minded.
  MR. PICKERSGILL: I beg to ask the Prime Minister whether a new reference has been committed to the Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the Feeble-Minded, and whether, having regard to the fact that the Commission have now been sitting for two rears and to the necessity for action, he will represent to the Commission the desirability of reporting forthwith on the matters originally referred to them.
  SIR H. CAMPBELL-BANNERMAN: My hon. friend will have seen in the Press that the original reference of the Royal Commission on the Care and Control of the Feeble-Minded has been extended. The procedure of a Royal Commission is a matter to be determined only by itself, but I have no reason to believe that the extended reference will cause any great delay in the issue of the Report of this Commission.

  SELECTION (STANDING COMMITTEE.)
  Sir BRAMPTON GURDONreported from the Committee of Selection; That they had discharged the following Members from the Standing Committee on Trade (including Agriculture and Fishing), Shipping, and Manufactures: Mr. Hob-house and Mr. Solicitor-General for Scotland: and had appointed in substitution: Mr. H. D. McLaren and Mr. Smeaton.
  Report to lie upon the Table.

  TRADE DISPUTES BILL.
  As amended, considered.
  MR. BOWLESmoved a new clause providing that the Act should remain in force five years. He hoped to be able to put before the House very shortly the grounds upon which he proposed this clause. Whatever might be the opinions in various quarters of the House as to the merits or demerits of the Bill which was now before them for the first time in its present form, there could be no doubt whatever that it would make changes of the gravest and most far-reaching character in the spirit with which laws dealing with trade disputes were administered. It would be agreed on all hands that these great and grave changes were really of so experimental a character that in every quarter of the House there was the gravest uncertainty as to what their final effect would be. Hon. Gentlemen below the gangway had of course considered this Bill most carefully, and they said its effect would be altogether good. It seemed to him that they had regarded the whole of the Bill and the effect it was likely to produce from a somewhat superficial standpoint. Hon. Members below the gangway said that if this Bill became law they would henceforward be able to conduct a strike with the full force of the trade union organisations. They would be able to increase the membership and the funds of those organisations, and by the use of their funds they would be able to commit what the law called "torts" but which laymen prefer to call "wrongs." The Labour Members said that was really all they wanted and so the Bill was good enough for them. That of course was a perfectly comprehensive
  1350
  position. Hon. Members below the gangway would tell them that this Bill would be good for labour and would to that extent be good for capital. It seemed to him that what they had to consider was what the real, final, and fundamental effect of the Bill would be, not upon labour or capital, but upon that delicate adjustment of capital to labour upon which the success of any industrial system depended. As to the effect which this measure was going to have upon the industrial system as a whole, as far as he knew, hon. Gentlemen below the gangway had not given them one word as to what their opinion was. The same thing might be said of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite. The Attorney-General had told them at an earlier stage of the discussions on this matter, that in his opinion a Bill such as that which was now before the House would create a privileged proletariat. He had stated that to create what he called a privileged proletariat would be a dangerous thing to do. He agreed with the hon. and learned Gentleman to that extent, but he did not agree with his description of the Bill, and he did not believe that it created a privileged proletariat. This was a Bill for giving privileges and immunities to one section of what the hon. and learned Gentleman called the proletariat, and the question was what the effect of the gift of those privileges to a section only of the whole population would be, not upon those sections alone, but upon the whole industrial fabric of the country, which it was the business of the House to consider and regard. As to what would be the effect of the gifts of those privileges upon the whole of our industrial system, not one word or hint had escaped right hon. or hon. Gentlemen opposite. The same might be said of the hon. Gentlemen who sat below the gangway. Some hon. Members opposite held that there was no harm to be expected or anticipated in practice from the Bill. Others said that the effect of the measure would be the usual effect which followed upon granting privileges of all kinds, and that it would not help the position of trade unionism in this country; but that in the end it would hinder it and render it unpopular. Certainly on the broad and main question not one hint had come from hon. Gentlemen opposite, and they seemed to regard the Bill as a sort of sop to be thrown to

  1351
  hon. Members below the gangway. Upon the Opposition Benches there was without doubt a considerable amount of genuine apprehension, not confined to the narrow grounds of one section of labour or capital, which might be ill-founded, but at any rate was sincere, as to the effect the measure would have upon the industrial system of the country as a whole. The effect of the Bill upon trade unionism by itself was in the opinion of the majority of hon. Members very doubtful. [Cries of "No."] He was speaking of the ultimate and real effect of the Bill on labour as a whole, which was even more doubtful than its effect upon capital and labour. These were matters which had hardly been discussed or considered in connection with the Bill, so far as the speeches of hon. Members opposite were concerned. Therefore, one was justified in saying as the question now stood, that this was a matter to be regarded as an experiment. It would be said that the Bill was not really an experiment at all. The argument would be used that it only put the law in the position which for thirty years it was believed to stand in, and that it did not alter the law in these matters unreasonably. That might have been true of the original Bill introduced by the Government, but nobody would contend that it was in any degree true of the Bill which was now for the first time before them. One had only to glance down the margin of the Bill to confirm that statement. Clause 1 they were told was an amendment of the law of conspiracy. By Clause 2, picketing was made a matter for consideration on its merits in each case, but it was a matter definitely sanctioned with all the authority of an Act of Parliament. Clause 3 dealt with a serious liability which existed before, but which was now finally and expressly removed, and by Clause 4 not only were trade unions not to be liable in their funds, but the Bill went further and laid down what had never been enacted before, that an action should not lie and that such and such a rule should apply to an action of that character. Therefore, it was impossible to contend that the Bill was merely a confirmation of what the old law was believed to be. It made a tremendous fundamental and vastly important change,
  1352
  not only in the law but in the spirit of the law, and it enacted changes in regard to which the real and final effect upon the industries of this country was absolutely problematical and totally uncertain. Supposing the Bill became law, what would be its effect? In any trade dispute both employers and workmen so long as they were organised were to have express statutory authority to commit wrongs, because that was the real meaning of the word "tort," and they would have the power to do harm to persons and property without any liability whatever in respect of those wrongs. The old lines upon which the prosperity of this country had been built up were swept away and new-fangled maxims were to be put in their place. How long did right hon. and hon. Gentlemen suppose that they would be able to confine these enormous immunities to trade combinations and trade disputes alone? They would be faced at once with one hundred combinations of all kinds, and upon what principle were right hon. and hon. Gentlemen opposite going to refuse to other voluntary associations privileges and immunities of the enormous and far-reaching character which they were handing over to trades and industrial combinations alone? The ruin and damage which might be inflicted by voluntary associations were no worse than the damage inflicted by industrial disputes, and why were they going to treat them differently? What would be the result if hon. Gentlemen were forced to extend this principle which now for the first time they were introducing into the spirit of the laws of this country? These difficulties had been forced upon the Committee by the Attorney-General, and they might lead to disastrous results which were not expected by any section of the House. Such were a few of the elementary and uppermost questions which arose upon a cursory examination of the Bill, and it was only these circumstances, and in consideration of the character of the Bill and of its possible and very probable effects, that he asked the House to accept this clause or something very much like it. Now what did this clause do after all? It was not a far-reaching thing, and it did not exactly involve the essential principles for which hon. Gentlemen below the gangway contended. It marked the Bill as an

  1353
  experiment. It would lay down that Parliament considered this was an experiment to which they were ready and willing to give a fair trial, but they realised that it was an experiment, and that it involved changes of so far-reaching a character that they ought to be reconsidered after a reasonable interval of actual experience. The clause ensured that the Bill would have a fair trial for five years, and if that was not considered long enough perhaps the right hon. Gentleman would be able to suggest some other plan. At the end of that period the whole effect, not upon capital or labour, or upon any section of the population, but upon industry as a whole, might be reconsidered if necessary. Hon. Gentlemen opposite and below the gangway surely were not afraid of this proposal? If they believed that the effect of the Bill would be good, then they could have no objection to the Amendment. How could they object to a clause which allowed the Bill a fair field and a fair trial, and if, after a fair trial, and tested by practical experience, the results were really good, he did not understand how, under those circumstances, they could have the slightest fear when it came to be reconsidered by the House. If, on the other hand, it was found to be unsatisfactory, the House would be less disposed to continue an experiment that had proved unsuccessful. That being so, he did not think any real sincere believer in the Bill either could or ought to fear reconsideration of the points he had mentioned. If the Bill was good it was the simplest matter in the world to continue it, but if, on the other hand, the apprehensions proved to be well founded, if it was found that the effects of these gigantic immunities had been bad, that, on the whole, industry had suffered rather than gained, and if—and it was not at all inconceivable—it was found that trade unionism had been the loser by this kind of legislation, he thought the whole House would be glad to be afforded the opportunity which his clause would afford of reconsidering the matter in a proper manner, after the experience of five years of actual and practical working. On these grounds he hoped the House would at any rate extend a fair consideration to what seemed to him a very reasonable proposal. He begged to move.
  MR. CARLILEformally seconded.
  New Amendment—
  "That this Act shall remain in force fur a period of five years."—(Mr. Stewart Bowles.)—
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  THE ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir JOHN WALTON, Leeds, S.)said the Government did not take the view that this was a temporary measure. They intended it to be a final settlement of a controversy which had raged in an acute form for the last five years. If the measure was going to be attended by all the consequences which the hon. Member for Norwood had predicted it would be well within the competence of Parliament, to repeal it at any time.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR, while sharing the apprehensions of his hon. friend with regard to the provisions of this Bill—the third edition of it—was not sure that the method he proposed of limiting its operation was one which he should invite him to press. Supposing the five years came to an end, and that nothing of a serious character happened in the course of that time, ought they to be prepared to see the experiment repeated, and to look forward with confidence to future developments on the strength of five years' experience? He did not take quite so sanguine a view of the length of time within which the success or failure of the experiment could be demonstrated. He thought we were on the eve of a great development of industrial organisation—not confined to the wage-earning classes, but in the employing classes as well; but he certainly did not anticipate that in the next five years, unless some quite unforeseen event occurred, that they would see that full development. At any rate, he did not think five years an adequate time in which to test this legislation. Of the alternatives presented neither was in the fullest sense acceptable. If at the end of five years the Act was continued in the Expiring Laws Continuance Act, then they might as well make it permanent at once, because experience showed that once a Bill got into the toils

  1355
  of the Expiring Laws Continuance Act it never got out again for the purposes of re-survey by the House. If the second alternative was taken, of re-surveying the question at the end of the term, then he doubted whether this Parliament had any right to put upon itself or upon its successor the necessary consideration of so complicated a question at that particular time. In the third place, to repeal the Bill at the end of five years would not be acceptable to anybody, because everybody must feel that, however unsatisfactory might be the solution proposed by the Government, some amendment of the statutes under which trade unions carried on their work was imperatively required.
  LORD R. CECILthought the views of the Leader of the Opposition would be listened to with respect not only by his supporters but in all parts of the House upon a question of legislative procedure, and it was quite possible that his hon. friend would ask leave to withdraw his Amendment. He confessed that he had a profound sympathy with the Amendment, and he felt strongly that this was a very special case in which it was not altogether unjustifiable that the House of Commons should say that the matter ought to be reconsidered after a fixed period. It was an experiment which certainly could not be regarded as final. To be frank, it was an entirely new departure in legislation. It contained a principle which had never been sanctioned by Parliament; it was entirely fresh and novel. It came before the House of Commons not recommended by any responsible authority at all. It had not been recommended by the Royal Commission, because that Commission reported strongly against many of its more striking clauses. It had not the authority of the Government, because the Government both before and after they introduced the Bill had delivered the strongest speeches and used some of the strongest arguments which could possibly be used against it. The Attorney-General now said that this was to be a final settlement, but he also said that the original Bill, when it was introduced, was to be a final settlement, but after three or four months consideration of it a complete change had been made in it, and now they were told that another complete
  1356
  change was necessary in order to effect a final settlement. Was it rational to suppose that the third attempt of the Attorney-General was likely to prove more permanent than the other attempts? If it was not permanent, was it not reasonable to say that this measure ought to be considered by Parliament after a reasonable interval? There seemed to him to be a strong logical case for the Amendment of his hon. friend. The House should also consider the nature of the Bill which it was asked to pass. He could not help feeling himself that the principle was not only novel, but exceedingly dangerous. The principle of the measure was that they were to relax the control of the law over certain disputes and differences which existed in certain parts of our social life. They were really abandoning to some extent one of the chief duties of civilised government. What hon. Gentlemen below the gangway asked them to do was this: "Let the State stand aside, and let employers and workmen fight out this question between themselves." That was not an exaggeration of some of the language which had been used in the course of the debates on this question. It was a tremendous and serious departure to ask this House to take. Its real effect was to withdraw from the control of the State a most vital question, and he believed that both employers and workmen would suffer from the Bill. He could not conceal from himself the thought that the people who would suffer even more severely were those who depended upon the industrial prosperity of the country. These considerations should be present in the mind of the House when considering the proposal to enact this Bill as a permanent measure. There were certain hon. Members opposite who entirely agreed with everything that was said about the Bill, but for reasons that he could understand they did not give effect either by speech or vote to their views. He regretted that attitude, and he hoped they would not wake up to find out that some of the causes they held dear had been compromised.
  SIR FREDERICK BANBURYsaid the only reply that had been given to the Clause moved by his hon. friend was that the Attorney-General could not accept it because he

  1357
  desired to make the Bill a final settlement of the question. Everybody in the House, no matter what their opinions might be, were desirous of effecting final settlement of the question. What they had to consider was whether this Bill would secure that end. What reasons had they for supposing that this measure would be a final settlement? The new clause proposed by his hon. friend covered a sufficient period to give them experience as to whether or not the Bill would work well, and and if at the end of five years it was found that the Bill had not worked well, either from the point of view of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway or from the point of view of the employers, then there would be an opportunity of reconsidering the whole question. He had had the honour of a seat in the House for more than fourteen years, and he had seen a great many Bills brought up in regard to which their promoters stated that they would be a final settlement of the questions dealt with. He thought he was right in saying that there was not a single hon. Member in the House who would get up and say that he could point to any important measure which had ever resulted in being the final settlement of any question. Hon. Members below the gangway had always said that the Bills brought in for the regulation of Irish matters were going to be the final settlement of the Irish question, but the more Bills they passed, the greater had become the question and no final settlement had ever been arrived at. Whatever views they took about this Bill there was no doubt that it was an extremely important measure. The trade of this country, for a variety of reasons which he did not propose to go into, was, except in one or two special instances, not good. He did not wish to delay the proceedings by going into what trades were good and what were bad, but with the exception of Manchester and one or two other places, trade was not good generally. In addition to that question they were face to face with foreign competition. It was undoubted that this Bill would go far to affect trade one way or the other and he thought it would affect trade badly. Hon. Members below the gangway thought it would improve trade, but he thought it would make it worse. What objection could there be
  1358
  to limiting the operation of the Bill to five years? At the end of five years hon. Members could come forward and say, if the Bill had been a success, "You see we were right, our prophecies have turned out true and yours were wrong." In that case the Bill would be renewed and nobody would dare to oppose its renewal. If, on the other hand, the fears of those sitting on that side of the House were correct they would be afforded an opportunity of reversing the position, and saying, "You have proved yourselves to be wrong, now let us go back to our old system before the whole trade of the country is destroyed; let us return to the original state of affairs and endeavour to restore the prosperity which this Bill has destroyed." That seemed to him to be a reasonable proposition, and he was further convinced upon this point because no hon. Member opposite had got up to contend the opposite. The only argument advanced had been the argument of the Attorney-General which had been so ably dealt with by the noble Lord the Member for West Marylebone. The Attorney-General had already proposed three methods of settlement, and, unless he was very much mistaken, the third settlement was not his own but the settlement of hon. Gentlemen below the gangway. Under these circumstances he hoped that unless some much stronger reasons than had been advanced up to the present could be put forward the House would accept the clause that had been moved by his hon. friend.
  *MR. STUART WORTLEYthought he could remind the House of an important precedent of a temporary Act which did not get itself involved in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill, and which did not get itself into such a position that it could not be extracted from that kind of entangling circumstance. The precedent he referred to was the Agricultural Rating Act, and there were some other analogies. That Bill was denounced as class legislation, and he hoped the significance of that analogy would be borne in mind. It led to a good deal of discontent among a large minority in this House, and who could say that the same would not prove to be true in regard to this Bill? He felt that there would be a large number

  1359
  of hon. Members who would be dissatisfied with this legislation if it was passed in its present form. It might be argued that it should be made perpetual and be regarded as a final settlement, because it was what was called labour legislation. As an instance of labour legislation of a temporary character there was the Employers' Liability Act of 1880, which had to be annually continued in the Expiring Laws Continuance Bill; and when in 1895 the Eight Hours for Miners Bill passed its Second Reading, and got effectively into Committee, one of the first Amendments accepted was an Amendment limiting its operation to three or five years. Therefore he thought his hon. friend had ample warrant for making this proposal, and whether it went to a division or not the question had been well worth bringing forward.
  *MR. R. DUNCANthought that they ought not to commit themselves to any Resolution that this Bill embodied a settlement for five years to come. he knew perfectly well the danger of combinations, whether of employers or employed. Why should they not have an amending Bill, and agree to profit by experience, as wise men always did. They had heard of a Prime Minister, who lived in history as "Finality John," who once said that the course of reform had reached its limit in the nineteenth century and, as King Canute would say, "Thus far and no further." But "Finality John" was no longer looked upon as an authority upon that question. Might he recall to the recollection of the House that on Wednesday they heard a most eloquent and learned speech from the right hon. Gentleman sitting in front of him, but on Friday he had formed an entirely different opinion.
  MR. BOWLESsaid that after the debate they had had he did not wish to occupy further the time of the House, and he asked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *MR. CLAVELL SALTERwho had given notice of a new clause defining the term "trade dispute," said he would not press his Amendment at the present time because
  1360
  he noticed that the Attorney-General proposed to deal under Clause 5 with the definition of the phrase "trade dispute." It was a longer definition than his own and he could not say he agreed with the whole of it, but obviously the matter could not be discussed twice and he imagined that it would be more convenient to take the discussion upon the Attorney-General's Amendment.
  *MR. SAMUEL ROBERTSmoved a new clause dealing with the limitation of actions against trade unions. He did not think he could do better than to repeat the speech which the Attorney-General made when he introduced this Bill, for the arguments he then brought forward would be within the recollection of the House. He would, however, only trouble the House by quoting one or two paragraphs from the Attorney-General's speech. He was simply dealing now with this particular clause and not with the principles of the other clauses of the Bill. The whole difficulty has arisen on this point on account of the law of agency—the application of the law of agency to trade unions. A principal was liable for the acts of his agent acting within the general scope of his authority. In the case of trade unions there had been in the past a grievance which ought to be remedied, and the Royal Commission reported that, in their opinion, there was a distinct grievance of trade unions arising from the fact that their ramifications and branches extended all over the country. On page 8 of the Royal Report they said—
  "The first is as regards what are known as their 'branches,' which are often in a semi-independent position to the union as a whole or its central executive. It is not unnaturally looked upon as a hardship that the funds of the whole union may be rendered liable by the unauthorised act of some branch agent."
  The provision in the Government Bill as originally brought forward did provide a remedy in this respect, and it followed out the recommendation of the Royal Commission. The Attorney-General said on that point—
  "We propose so to define the law of agency in its application to these unions that no act can be the foundation of a claim for redress from trade union funds unless it is perfectly clear that that act was authorised by the governing body of the union."

  1361
  Later on the right hon. Gentleman said—
  "Why not say that no action whatever shall be brought?' Just let me ask the House to face the position. The proposition, as I understand it, is that however great the loss that may be suffered by an individual and however unjustifiable the conduct of the union which may occasion that loss may be, even in the case of that conduct which may have been carried out by the funds of the union and controlled by the union, they are not to be made liable for the consequences of that law."
  The right hon. Gentleman further said—
  "Do not let us create a privilege for the proletariat and give a sort of benefit of the clergy to the trade unions analogous to the benefit of clergy which was formerly enjoyed and which created an immunity against actions in favour of certain sections of the population."
  He would like also, to quote the opinion of one or two other Members and to refer to the debate which took place last year, when the Bill dealing with trade unions was brought forward by the hon. Member for the Spen Valley Division. During the course of that debate the hon. Member for Mid Durham seconded the Bill, and at the end of his speech he asked for fair play in this matter. He said—
  "Now all he said was 'give us fair play.' He would concede this, if a committee or organisation deputed any man whatever, to do that which might be wrong he had no objection to it being made liable, because it was the union itself which was doing it. But if he went to a place where there was a strike without the sanction of the committee, and urged the men to that which was wrong he ought to be punished, and the funds ought not to be mulcted. The day had come when they should drop all reference to the Taff Vale and other cases. Let the dead past bury its dead. Let them start anew. Let them have a law fair, honourable, and just to every man."
  Later on in the debate the right hon. Gentleman the Chancellor of the Exchequer expressed his opinion, and he said—
  "The real evil to be guarded against, which had been accentuated and intensified by this decision of the House of Lords, was that the funds of the union might be made liable for the acts of persons who were really irresponsible agents, though their agency might be attributed to the union. If they could once get such a limitation of the law of agency as would protect the union, and, therefore its funds, from the acts of those who were not definitely authorised to bind it, he believed the result of the decision in the Taff Vale case would almost entirely disappear."
  Those words of the present Chancellor of the Exchequer were absolutely carried out by the clause brought forward by the
  1362
  Government and introduced in such eloquent terms by the Attorney-General. They all knew that influence had since been brought to bear upon the Government to modify that view, but he contended that the whole proposition now was going far beyond what was really necessary. It was giving immunity to trade unions to do any amount of damage both public and private, and yet their funds were not to be liable. The Royal Commission in a paragraph in their Report, said—
  "There is no rule of law so elementary, so universal, and so indispensible as the rule that a wrongdoer should be made to redress his wrong."
  He was at loss to understand why any person in this country should be found unwilling to come forward and dispute that proposition. Surely it was one of the most elementary propositions that a wrongdoer ought to be responsible for his actions. By this Bill that proposition was entirely disputed. [Cries of "No."] The original Bill brought forward by the Attorney-General amply covered any reasonable grievance which trade unions under present circumstances experienced, and if they were exempted from the law of agency as applied in the Taff Vale case, every grievance they brought forward would be legitimately met. He noticed that the reason given for the change in the Bill of the Government was expressed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer in a speech to his constituents en the 13th October, reported in The Times of the 15th. The right hon. Gentleman was reported to have said—
  "On only one point, namely, the process by which the union funds should be protected, had there been any difference of opinion. He had never disguised his preference for the methods proposed by the Government Bill in the form in which it was first introduced, but the question was highly technical, and upon such a point as that he was not ashamed to give way to the opinion of others whose authority he recognised, always with this proviso, which was completely satisfied by the present form of the Government Bill, that no immunity should be conferred upon any combination of men which was not fully and equally extended on the same terms to combinations of employers."
  The comment he had to make on that speech was that the difference between the two clauses was not technical, but was a matter of great substance. In the first clause a union would not be liable for the acts of an agent if they

  1363
  protected themselves in the way proposed, but in the present case they were not to be liable at all, whether they protected themselves or not. They were not to be liable if the Committee passed a sober Resolution authorising wrongful acts to be done. Surely that was not a technical matter, but a matter of real substance. Then the right hon. Gentleman opposite consoled himself in the fact "that the same law is to apply to both employers and workmen." He would like to inform him that it was not so at all, because he had never heard of actions being brought by employers against workmen, the workmen were not rich people with property, and therefore it would not be worth while bringing actions against them. [An HON. MEMBER: It has been done in many cases recently.] The Government could not justify their change of front by saying that employers were placed on the same footing as the workmen, for employers did not ask for any such immunity, if they did commit tortious acts they were willing to abide the consequences. He hoped even at the last moment that the Government would go back to their original plan in order to see if that plan would not be effective. In later years it would then be possible to bring in another Bill to amend the present one if necessary in order to make it more successful.
  New Clause:—
  "(1) Where a committee of a trade union constituted as hereinafter mentioned has been appointed to conduct on behalf of the union a trade dispute, an action whereby it is sought to charge the funds of the union with damages in respect of any toitious act committed in contemplation or furtherance of the trade dispute, shall not lie. unless the act was committed by the committee or by some person acting under their authority. Provided that a person shall not be deemed to have acted under the authority of the committee if the act was an act or one of a class of acts expressly prohibited by a resolution of the committee, or the committee by resolution expressly repudiate the act as soon as it is brought to their knowledge. (2) The committee may be a committee appointed either generally to conduct all trade disputes in which the union may be involved, or to conduct any trade disputes of a specified class or in a specified locality, or to conduct any particular trade dispute."—(Mr. Samuel Roberts.)
  Brought up and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid the position of hon. Gentlemen opposite differed from that of the Labour Party. He freely acknowledged that the Ministerialists fell into two classes so far as their attitude to this Bill was concerned. There was a considerable number—the majority—who promised clearly and definitely at the last general election that they would support the Labour Party's Bill. They had honestly, as far as possible, tried to carry out that pledge, and he attributed far more effect to the pressure they had brought to bear upon the Government than to that brought by the Labour Party. To that section of the Liberal Party he made no appeal, but there was another section which took a very different view, and took it not on details but on principles. To them he hoped even now, on the Report stage of the Bill, it might not be too late to address an observation. When the subject first engaged public attention, the Chancellor of the Exchequer made a speech, and he did not know whether the right hon. Gentleman quite realised the extent of his responsibility in this matter. There were many Liberals, he believed, who were forming a judgment how they should vote on the question, and who naturally attached immense importance to the right hon. Gentleman's utterances on the subject. Their judgment could not fail to be affected by the assurances of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, couched in language so clear, as almost to amount to a menace, that in no circumstances would he allow himself to be intimidated into supporting the Bill as it now stood.
  MR. ASQUITHdissented.
  MR. F. E. SMITHsaid the right hon. Gentleman shook his head, but, in company with the Minister for War, he clearly declared before the last general election that he did not approve of, and would not assent to, the present proposals.
  MR. ASQUITH: I do not think I ever referred to the question at the general election, certainly not in any such terms as the hon. Member attributes to me. The only passage, which I have seen frequently quoted, is in an address to the Eighty Club about three years ago. My impression is that last session I supported the Second Reading of this Bill.
  MR. F. E. SMITHpointed out that the right hon. Gentleman supported that Bill in common with many Unionist Members on the Opposition side of the House who thought that some change in the law was necessary, and that the matter should be discussed in Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said when the Bill was being discussed on 10th March, 1905—
  "The real evil to be guarded against, which had been accentuated and intensified by this decision of the House of Lords, was that the funds of a union might be made liable for the acts of persons who were really irresponsible agents, though their agency might be attributed to the union. If they could once get such a limitation of the law of agency as would protect the union, and, therefore, its funds, from the acts of those who were not definitely authorised to bind it, he believed the result of the decision in the Taff Vale case would almost entirely disappear."
  The Secretary of State for War had said—
  "If the trade unions believed that Mr. Asquith and himself were going to accept at the dictation of the Labour Party Mr. Keir Hardie's proposals, they were very much mistaken."
  That was what this new clause proposed. The provocative language on this occasion to which he had referred was used by the Minister for War, who he observed left the House at the momont when it would have been extremely convenient for him to explain what he then meant.
  MR. ASQUITH: He is coming back again.
  MR. F. E. SMITHremarked that what the right hon. Gentleman said was that if trade unionists believed that the Chancellor of the Exchequer and himself were going to accept, at the dictation of the Labour Party, the proposals of the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, they were very much mistaken. He did not remember ever having heard the Chancellor of the Exchequer dissociate himself from that statement. If it was still the view of the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the Secretary of State for War, and the Attorney-General, that the better proposal of the two was the original proposal of the Government, he trusted they might be favoured by some explanation—of principle and not of political expediency— why that had ceased to be their position. The only public explanation given by the Attorney-General of the change of principle appeared to be that so long as
  1366
  the same facilities or rights were given to the associations of employers his chief objection disappeared How could it possibly matter to a man who wished to bring an action against a trade union to recover damages, it might be for an act authorised by their executive council, whether, if he wanted to bring an action against an association of employers, they would enjoy the same immunity? The point of view they had to consider was not that of employer and workman, but of a member of the outside public whom they were depriving of his legal remedy. All that had been done was to increase the anomaly by adding to the number of people who were to enjoy an immunity of which on principle the right hon. Gentleman entirely disapproved. If it was too late to recall the Chancellor of the Exchequer to that better self which spoke before the general election, at least he might condescend to give some explanation of his changed position. No honest Minister would take up the position that the way he originally recommended was only one of two ways when that first way was recommended on the ground of public morality. They had been told by the Attorney-General that if these privileges were given to trade unionists, which no other section of the community enjoyed, those privileges could not long be withheld from other bodies. Was it less detestable to create a privilege for a proletariat than for any other class? That was the gravamen of the charges made against many of the proposals of the late Government. When the late Administration brought forward measures they were frequently told that they introduced a privilege for the Church or for landowners. If that were so it was wrong, but surely it was equally wrong to introduce a Bill which gave privileges to the proletariat. Was it too much to ask that they might be told that night—yea or nay—by the Attorney-General whether this Bill created a new privilege for the proletariat? What explanation had the Chancellor of the Exchequer given of his change of opinion, except that he could not have controlled his party in the division lobby? But to these right hon. Gentleman he appealed without the slightest hope of success. He had no hope that Ministers would abandon the second—no, the third — of the final positions they had adopted.

  1367
  He appealed rather to the judgment of private Members, whom he would remind of the statement made by the hon. Member for Derby at the Trade Union Conference. The hon. Member then declared that if they were to say that though the Central Executive Council had authorised a particular act, the trade union funds should not be liable, they were going to call into existence a new privilege, for which they could not find any logical defence on the floor of the House of Commons, and which it would never be possible to press home. If anyone could have said that we were behind other countries in respect of this question it might have been an important argument, though it would not have got rid of the objection to the principle. But the experience of those countries where trade unions were most powerful was precisely the opposite. He would appeal to every hon. Member of this House who had not given a definite pledge to support the clause of his hon. friend, which was exactly the same clause as the Government originally introduced. He did not appeal to the Attorney-General, who had from the first been like a rudderless ship, floating about at the mercy of every eddy and wind; but he thought he might say that on the great question of principle involved he had the support of those to whom the Government at first trusted the formulation of this immensely important legislation.
  THE CHANCELLOR OF THE EXCHEQUER (Mr. ASQUITH)said that before the House rose in August, he explained with great explicitness his own view of the matter, but since he had been challenged to justify the change of attitude which had occurred, he would briefly restate his own position. The Taff Vale decision created universal surprise. For thirty years we had all lived under the impression that the state of the law which this Bill was intended to bring about was the actual law of the land. For thirty years society went on, trade disputes occurred from time to time, but they were conducted, as was admitted by everybody, with a mitigation of temper, and an improvement of method, which were most welcome signs in the industrial history of the country. The terrible consequences which had been depicted as
  1368
  likely to result from giving a "charter of licence" to associations, as well of employers as employed, did not occur. Even the late Government appointed a Commission to inquiry into this matter, thereby showing that they recognised the necessity of an alteration of law after the Taff Vale decision. There was in fact no difference as to the end sought to be attained. The sole question was by what mode we could most easily, effectually, and with least sacrifice of general convenience attain that end. He expressed the opinion immediately after the Taff Vale decision—and it was an opinion from which he had never receded—that the most practical and best way of attaining the object desired was by limitation of the law of agency and the law of conspiracy. It turned out, however, that not only hon. Gentlemen below the gangway, on the Opposition side, but the bulk of those who sat on the Government side of the House, took a different view. In a mere matter of method, however, he did not think there was anything dishonourable or unworthy in deferring to the prevailing opinion of those who after all were the best judges in the matter. This was his position, and he was content to leave it to the judgment of his countrymen. Perhaps it would be asked, "Are you right in thinking that this is a question not so much of principle as of method?" To this his reply was that even if the plan he preferred had been adopted, it might have been urged in the same way that he was making a privileged status for the trade unions. It might have been said that his position was that the conditions under which they carried on their operations were so exceptional that the ordinary laws of agency ought not to apply to them. Therefore this objection, the main objection of the previous speaker in point of principle, applied equally to both methods. He adhered to the statement, at which the hon. and learned Gentleman had rather sneered, that he would never have consented—there the question of principle came in—to such a proposition as was contained in the Bill unless the same measure had applied to associations of employers and associations of employed. In this Bill they were expressly put on the same level. The scheme proposed by the measure in its present form was one which past experience had shown

  1369
  was not accompanied with injurious effects either to employers or employed or to the community at large, and he had no hesitation in heartily supporting it.
  MR. LYTTELTONsaid he was not likely to impute to his right hon. friend anything dishonourable, but he wished to express his profound difference from him when he regarded his change of front as a technical matter and not as a change of importance. The right hon. Gentleman was perfectly right in saying that for thirty years a certain condition of the law was believed generally by the legal profession to exist. That was the only argument in favour of these proposals. He himself agreed that after that decision the law should be made clear, but the only change that was required in the law was one, not authorising the doing of wrong, but providing that those who were not responsible for the wrong should be immune from the results of its commission. That was the original proposal, but now for the first time in the history of the English Legislature it was proposed that people should be able deliberately to authorise the commission of wrong, and should not be civilly responsible. He regretted that the Members of the Labour Party should, the first time they were able to use their power, ask the House not merely to give them a privilege, but a privilege which involved the right to break the moral law. That was what they had asked the Government to do, and what the Government had now resolved to do. Whereas formerly there was to be a prohibition of actions of tort against trade unions except in certain circumstances, there was now a prohibition of all actions against trade unions. ["No."] Under this Bill there was a prohibition, he repeated, of all actions against trade unions, and there was even a prohibition of an ordinary action for injunction, because the Bill did not merely refer to trade disputes. If a trade union thought fit to enter the house, even of another, and use it for its own purposes for the time being, no action for ejectment, no action for damage, no action for nuisance would lie. Had hon. Members reflected what they were doing, and had the House really reflected on the extraordinary flimsiness of the appeal which had temporarily satisfied the conscience of the Chancellor of the Exchequer?
  1370
  The right hon. Gentleman said he had brooded on this matter for three years, and that to-day he held the firm position he took upon it then. He held that opinion so tenderly to-day that he was going to vote against it. What had altered the opinion he took up three years ago and held a few months ago? The right hon. Gentleman said that what had satisfied his conscience was the fact that the immunity was to extend not merely to trade unions but to federations of employers. Let the right hon. Gentleman consider what the effect of that was. The Federation of Employers did not ask to break the law. They did not ask for a Parliamentary enactment to break the law. Therefore they had these two parties confronted. One asked Parliament to sanction their breaking the law, and the other did not [Cries of "They break it without"] and that being so, would any hon. Member get up in his place and say when two people were confronting each other, one of whom wished in the contest between them to commit a fraud and the other did not, that it would satisfy anybody adjudicating on the rights of the question to say that his conscience was satisfied because they could both commit fraud? The thing was too flimsy to stand. But let them look at it from the point of view of all those who stood outside a trade dispute, but who might be vitally injured by it. How was their position affected by the fact which had proved such a salve to the conscience of the right hon. Gentleman? It accentuated their grievance. In the future they were to have immunity given not merely to trade unions to injure people without risk or remedy but to the Employers' Federation, and the difficulty of the third party who stood outside the dispute altogether was largely increased. This was a deplorable moment to put forward such a claim on behalf of the body of trade unionists so soon after the concession of workmen's compensation and the privileges which they were all glad in this House to extend to them.
  AN HON. MEMBER: It was a right, not a privilege.
  MR. LYTTELTON: It was a right which was entirely novel; a right which imposed for the first time an obligation on an industry to make good the injury

  1371
  caused sometimes even by a man's own negligence. [Cries of "Oh."] He knew what he was saying. That legislation was beneficent legislation for the working classes of this country and they had benefited from it, and he was sorry they should have come forward so soon after and claimed for themselves as against others privileges which were not founded on right but were undoubtedly based on wrong.
  THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (Mr. HALDANE,)said that as his name had spread largely abroad during the last few weeks, he wished to define what exactly was his own opinion. For a long time past he had been strongly interested in this question. They were all agreed that trade unions must be differentially treated. They were differentially treated in the year 1871 by the first Act. They were originally illegal associations, being in restraint of trade, and Parliament intervened and put them in a privileged position. The Unionist Government followed this up in 1875 and 1876 by putting them into a further privileged position. It was believed for thirty years that trade unions could not be sued. The right hon. Gentleman said, "You are to be placed in a specially privileged position." "You" meant the trade unions. What was a trade union? It was an association of persons— it did not matter whether they were engaged in labour or anything else—who had subscribed certain funds for certain purposes and appointed a committee to look after certain interests. Those funds were subscribed by people living in the most distant parts of the country—such as the railway servants, who were spread all over the country—and it was obvious that they could not take an active part in the management of the funds. Obviously they were bound to leave it to the committee to manage the funds. The rules allowed the funds to be used in giving strike pay, and also provided that the funds were to be used for sick pay and benefits of various kinds. The short position was this. The funds had been handed over by the persons who subscribed them, without the slightest authority for their being used for illegal purposes. They were subscribed to keep people when out of employment,
  1372
  even during a strike. There was no illegality in that. What happened? For the first time, contrary to the expectation of the Court of Appeal, contrary to what had been believed—he did not deny the justice of it; from the point of view of abstract law he accepted the finding of the highest tribunal—the House of Lords, the highest tribunal of the law, said the Acts of 1875 and 1876 had not done what they ought to have done and what it was supposed they had done, namely, left the trade unions incapable of being sued in an action for a wrong at common law. That was the position of the trade unions at common law—that an action could not be brought against them for any of these things, and it was believed that the Act of Parliament had not altered that status so as to give a trade union such a corporate capacity as to enable it to be sued: The House of Lords reversed the decision of the Court of Appeal. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the injury that might be done to industry by this Bill. He ventured to say that nothing had done such injury to industry as the sense of injustice and wrong that had been engendered in the past. The feeling of bitterness which had been introduced into this matter was such that it became necessary that any Government should undertake to try and amend the situation. It created a situation which it was essential should be dealt with, and he never heard any situation dealt with more clearly than this was dealt with by the right hon. Gentleman himself during the life of the late Parliament when he rose from the Treasury bench and pointed out the injustice the law had caused, and undertook to deal with the question. He presumed when right hon. Members opposite appointed the Royal Commission presided over by Lord Dunedin they intended to do what Conservative Governments had done before and to put the trade unions into a further privileged position. What they would nave done he did not know. He took part in the debates at the time and he was anxious to bring on some amendment on the lines of equity. He accepted the equity of the argument that they must deal with the trade unions now that they were declared to be incorporated by placing them in a differential position. Otherwise they would defeat the very purpose of

  1373
  those who originally framed the statute. Nobody supposed that at common law such an association could he sued, and Parliament abstained from saying in actual terms that they were going to be incorporated. He thought the best way of dealing with the situation was not to repeal the Act of 1871, which would have to be repealed now in order to insure their not being incorporated, but to interfere in a radical fashion with the doctrine of agency as applied to these trade unions. Just let them consider what the agency was. He contended that the trade unions never intrusted these funds to the committee for improper purposes; they were intrusted to them for proper and legitimate purposes. But the technical rule of the law, the necessary rule no doubt, was that the maxim of respondiat superior applied. That said that the man who was superior must answer, and according to technical law and the technical rules which were necessary it made the superior or principal, who in this case was the trade union, liable. It was necessary to deal with that because the principal in a trade union was a very different person from any other principal. Trade unionists lived all over the United Kingdom and they could not come together to control these matters. It therefore seemed to him that the proper way was to limit the law of agency in a way as radical as anything that this Bill contemplated. It would prevent actions being brought against trade unions in cases of ordinary principle. Nothing was done by the late Government to carry out the report of the Royal Commission.
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: It was not issued.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he did not doubt that had it been issued the right hon. Gentleman would have taken some step, although they never knew in what form the matter would have been dealt with. In the course of the election he made a statement on this subject and he stood by it. The hon. Member for Merthyr, in terms which he did not think too conciliatory or agreeable, had said strong things about having his own way about the then Trade Disputes Bill, and he answered that the hon. Member for Merthyr might do what he
  1374
  pleased, but he for his part should take his own way and should not move. He was perfectly free to take his own way. His purpose was to put the trade unions in a position which would restore the status quo. Whether he did it by a revolution in their case of the law of agency—which would have been just as great a revolution as any clause in this Bill—or by any other method was a matter for him; it was not intended to be for the hon. Member for Merthyr or anybody else. When he came to it he found a good deal of discussion, and the enormous preponderance of opinion was for doing the thing in the simplest, though possibly the least logical way— not by cutting into the law of agency, but by simply saying you are not to sue the trade union. That being the general view, it was all one to him how it was done. The one course mounted to the same thing as the other. He was free to confess that he thought the simplest course was the one which had been adopted. It amounted to exactly the same thing in the long run. They simply put the trade union in exactly the same position as everybody believed it to be in. He might have thought that one way was the simplest fashion of attaining that end, or he might have thought that another way was the best, but that was not a matter of other than technical interest, and if his clause had been adopted it would have been denounced just as strongly by hon. Gentlemen opposite as the present clause was. The clause that had been chosen redressed a great injustice, and, let them say what they liked on the balance of advantage or disadvantage, there was no man who had surveyed the situation since the Taff Vale judgment, and had realised the amount of ill-feeling and social disturbance which the state of the law had made, but would agree with the right hon. Gentleman opposite in a speech he made some years ago, that there were few questions more urgently demanding the interposition of Parliament.
  MR. LYTTELTONsaid what he stated on the occasion referred to was that so far as he could then survey the situation great abuses arose through the tyranny of both trade unions and federations of employers, and that if he had the direction of legislation in the matter he would curtail both.
  MR. HALDANEsaid he was afraid that in whatever form they had proposed to deal with the matter the result would have been the same. Until they faced boldly the conclusion that it was only because of a technicality that a trade union could be sued at all they would never get out of the difficulty, and, accordingly, this clause was introduced to deal with the matter in the shortest, simplest, and most effective manner.
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid the first point in the speech to which they had just listened, and to which he would take exception, was the statement that in whatever form the Government had endeavoured to alter the existing state of things as regarded the trade unions it would have met with exactly the same opposition. The answer to that statement was to be found in the speech of the right hon. Gentleman himself. The right hon. Gentleman had regretted that the Report of the Royal Commission was not out in time to enable His Majesty's late Government to deal with the very question about which the right hon. Gentleman had just spoken. This point was by far the most important and most contentious in the Bill. But they who were opposed to the Government's present proposals and supported the clause now before the House had at least the satisfaction of knowing that they were supporting the view which represented the mature and deliberate opinion of the Cabinet itself. He believed a change of front like that executed by the present Government in this matter was altogether unprecedented in our political history. It was quite true there had been occasions when Governments, actuated by new facts or new arguments, had altered a vital principle of their Bill. But that was not the position here. This point had been before the House for five years. The Government deliberately represented to the House that one course was right and another wrong. There had been Governments also which had been compelled to give way as regards their own opinion even on important points because of the opinion of the majority of their own followers, but there had never been a Government which, to use a colloquial expression, had "given itself away" so openly and so shamelessly. What was
  1376
  the explanation? "There" [pointing to the LABOUR Benches] was the explanation. In this Parliament, for practically the first time, an extraneous body had forced itself into the solid substance of the Liberal Party. A wild animal—if he might use a simile without any disrespect, for he felt none, towards the hon. Members to whom he alluded—had tried to plant itself on the domestic hearth of the Liberal Party. How were they to deal with it? They might have risen in their anger and tried to drive it away. That would have been dangerous. So they adopted another plan They had made a family pet of it, or tried to do so. And during the whole time they had been in office right hon. Gentlemen on the Government bench, and especially the most important of them, had been chiefly employing their time in stroking the ruffled fur of this new inmate, and the more they stroked it the more it growled. And this new concession was a sop intended to prevent the growl being changed into a bite. It was true that some children of the family, one adopted son especially, had been kicking against this arangement; but what the future developments might be must be between right hon. Gentlemen opposite and the hon. Member to whom he referred. He had dealt so far with the Cabinet as a whole. He would now take the case of the right hon. Gentleman himself. He thought that the part played by individual Members of the Cabinet was still more remarkable than the change of front on the part of the Cabinet itself. The right hon. Gentleman had referred to some correspondence addressed to him by the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil, and to a reply which he had given in an address to his constituents in Scotland. He was afraid that the right hon. Gentleman had not refreshed his memory by referring either to the correspondence or to his own speech. The right hon. Gentleman now said that he meant to be perfectly free in dealing with this question. The right hon. Gentleman was entirely wrong. The point at issue in the letter was the very point at issue in the discussion now; the very proposal now being discussed was the proposal which the right hon. Gentleman then described as a preposterous proposal. The right hon. Gentleman challenged the Member for Merthyr to go to Haddington. These were brave words; the Member for Merthyr did not

  1377
  go to Haddington; Haddington had gone to the Member for Merthyr. The attitude of the Chancellor of the Exchequer had been the same. Up to to-day, however, there was one difference. The right hon. Gentleman the Secretary of State for War had been doing a great deal of thinking aloud, but his thoughts on this subject he had kept to himself. The Chancellor of the Exchequer was bolder; he went to his constituents and defended the change of view he had taken on two grounds—first, "it was only a difference of method." But the Attorney-General, speaking for the Government, said that this proposal would create a class privilege; so that in the eyes of hon. Members opposite whether a class privilege was or was not created, was simply "a difference of method." What, then, in the opinion of the right hon. Gentleman opposite would constitute a difference of principle?
  MR. HALDANE: I never proposed to create a class privilege—that was created in 1871.
  MR. BONAR LAWsaid the words he had quoted were used by the Attorney-General. But the Chancellor of the Exchequer had another argument. The right hon. Gentleman, using words almost as strong as those he used at the general election, said that—
  "Nothing in the world would have induced him to grant this unless the same thing had been given to the masters."
  He had said that apparently seriously, without a smile on his face, but no one knew better than the right hon. Gentleman how absurd the suggestion was. The contention of the right hon. Gentleman amounted to this: that here was an evil, and he would on no account permit it to come to pass unless the area of the evil was extended. It was bad, but it became good the moment that it was made twice as bad. There would be something in it if these two classes embraced the whole population, but trade unionists and employers combined embraced only a fraction of the population—at the very outside not more than a quarter—and the right hon. Gentleman proposed that the other three-quarters should be subjected to control by two bodies, which were outside the law, and that they should be ground between the upper and lower millstones of capital and labour. He
  1378
  believed there was not a Member representing trade unionism who was not now in favour of this proposal, though the right hon. Gentleman who sat opposite said on one occasion in dealing with this very point, that trade unionists would not be so unjust as to claim a privilege which would obviously be a class privilege. He did not think on that occasion the right hon. Gentleman showed that knowledge of human nature which he generally displayed. No man could be a judge in his own case. When even the right hon. Gentlemen who sat on the front Ministerial Bench had shown in the last week that they were willing to push through anything which would add to their own power, how could they expect trade unionists to act differently from other people? Though, of course, they were in favour of getting increased power, as everybody was, surely that was no reason why this House, which ought to represent not one class but every class, should give these special privileges. Although these right hon. Members whom he had quoted had changed their minds he could not doubt that there were some among them who looked with apprehension upon the result of this Bill. One effect, he thought, would inevitably be to lessen the control which leaders of trade unionists had upon their own organisation. The hon. Member for Derby, speaking of the Taff Vale decision, which was the cause of all this trouble, had said that if the executive had not defied the law it would not have happened, and if the executive had obeyed their own rules there would have been no Taff Vale question, and no Taff Vale decision. Were they more or less likely to obey the rules when the sense of responsibility was taken from them by the passing of this Bill? He believed many hon. Gentlemen opposite were prepared to support this proposal, because they felt that in any dispute capital had the best of it, and that even with this change labour would not be on an equality with capital. That might be an argument for State intervention in trade disputes, but it was not an argument for placing one class above all others in the eyes of the law. There was another consideration he would like to put before the House. Hon. Gentlemen below the gangway claimed that they represented exclusively the labouring classes, and that anything which was to the benefit of their unions

  1379
  was of necessity for the benefit of labour as a whole. That was a claim he had always disputed. Speaking broadly, he said these hon. Gentlemen represented not the working-class as a whole, but the aristocracy of the working-classes. He said advisedly that the interests of the skilled artisan were not identical with the interests of unskilled labour in this country. He instanced the unfortunate labour dispute now taking place on the Clyde. In those yards where men were out of work there were skilled workmen receiving a larger amount of pay for one day's work than the unskilled labourers for a whole week's work. In what way were the wages of the unskilled labourers to be raised? It could be done only in one of two ways—either by taking a larger share from the profits of capital or making more equality between the wages of the skilled and unskilled labourers. The amount from profits was limited, and for that the skilled workmen would compete for their own class. Therefore the interests of skilled workmen were diametrically opposed to the interests of unskilled workmen. In completing that argument he would only use the words of the Attorney-General himself. He put these two grounds. These were almost his words, if not his exact words: "Are you sure that in removing an injustice from one class you are not inflicting a greater injustice on some other class of the community?" He would like to conclude by making a statement which, he was afraid, after what he had said, would not be accepted readily, but be made it because it was true. He had no hostility to trade unions. He knew the employing class as well as others, though he had never had any interest himself as an employer of labour. He believed they were like other classes—neither better nor worse—but he would be very sorry to see the working-men of this country deprived of the advantage which combination gave in dealing with employers. He would be sorry to see the individual workman driven to make his bargain with the individual employer. For that reason he would have been in favour of a Bill on the lines of the Report of the Royal Commission, but that was no reason why they should put one class or two classes in an entirely exceptional position, above the law of the country. He was not opposed to the Bill as a
  1380
  whole; there was much in it that he would gladly vote for. He was opposed to this proposal because he honestly believed it would press most hardly, not upon the capitalists—they would take care of themselves—but on the unorganised and unskilled labour of the country.
  *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid that in the eloquent speech they had heard from the hon. Member there were several references to utterances of his in connection with the introduction of this Bill. He had had many occasions to reflect on what he then said, and he had had frequently called to his attention quotations which had been liberally made from his remarks. Unfortunately, some of the arguments in his speech seemed to have furnished material for attacks which hon. Members opposite had made upon the Bill, but he thought when that speech was considered with the occasion in connection with which it was made, there was no reason why he should regret or withdraw a single statement in it. If hon. Members would bear with him for a moment while he gave a plain statement of the case which he submitted for the consideration of the House, they would see that if he had said less or said more than he did say he would have been guilty cither of disrespect to the House itself or of disloyalty to the Government of which he was a humble Member. The hon. Member for Dulwich had expressed the hope that he would not be provoked into using as strong language as he said he himself had been guilty of in the remarks he had made in connection with this measure. But the hon. Member had used language which, he trusted, far exceeded any licence he might have allowed himself in dealing with the question. He had charged the Government with shameless conduct, saying they that had created a new precedent in our history, and were giving birth to a privilege for which there was no parallel in our administrative annals.
  MR. BONAR LAW; I beg pardon; I never said that.
  *SIR JOHN WALTON: Perhaps the hon. Member did not say that, but his argument largely tended to encourage the opinion and certainly, as he understood, the argument of some hon.

  1381
  Members, and particularly of his hon. and learned friend behind him, went quite that length. Of course it was quite right that he should, in this matter, have been chosen as the head and front of an offending Administration, and that the political jeremiads they had heard on the moral infirmity which had been, as their critics thought, exhibited by His Majesty's Government should have derived point and piquancy by their personal application to him. His right hon. and learned friend the Member for Dublin University had told them that no blandishments of office, however alluring, would over have induced him to be a party to the conduct with which he reproached the Government. He believed that statement was absolutely sincere, and he believed so the more readily because it was clear that the right hon. and learned Gentleman had entirely forgotten the circumstances under which this Bill was introduced. Let him remind the right hon. and learned Gentleman and the House. He pointed out the grievance which this Bill was intended to remedy. He showed that the funds of unions had boon held liable for the unauthorised acts of their officials, and he clearly indicated to the House two remedies which he thought might be applicable to that condition of things. The first remedy was to amend the law of agency so that no chargeability should arise except in connection with the authoritative Acts of the executive bodies which controlled the affairs of trade unions. The other method was to restore to these unions the immunity which, for thirty years, they had enjoyed in general legal estimation and which, according to the decision of the Court of Appeal, they had enjoyed as a legal right. Well, he expressed to the House with candour and with frankness, as he trusted those who hold his office always would do, what he thought were the objections to which the second of these proposals was open, and he did not recede from any of the observations he then made. He still thought that the first method, which was that embodied in this clause, would have been the preferable mode to adopt, but surely, as he pointed out then, it was a question for the consideration of the House. He declared that while these were his views he was no pedant. He was prepared to accept and consider the clearly expressed opinion of the House in reference to the alternative
  1382
  proposal, and if he might invite hon. Members opposite to look at this question for one moment in a sense of fairness, was it not eminently a question for the House? Was not the Parliament of 1906 just as competent to continue the charter which the Parliament of 1871 created as the earlier Parliament was to create it? If, in the Parliament of 1871, special treatment was accorded to trade unions, if the charter which was described by hon. Gentlemen opposite as a charter of privilege was then given to them as the Court of Appeal held and as universal legal opinion held, and if for thirty years they had not abused the trust placed in their hands, surely it was quite competent for the Parliament of 1906 to continue that privilege for an indefinite future. The House had, he thought, settled that question. In every quarter of the House—the benches behind the Government, the benches below the gangway on this side, the benches below the gangway on that side—there had been as strong a body of opinion in favour of this solution of the question as had been expressed in any previous Parliament in regard to any proposed legislation brought before them. What was suggested that he ought to have done or that the Government ought to have done? They ought to have said, "There is the grievance, it shall either be treated according to our methods or left an open sore." Well, to adopt such a course would be to be guilty of the pedantry he sought to repudiate. If the grievance, if the sore was there, surely the true and statesmanlike mode of treating this question was to say: "We will adopt the method which we do not think is the best, but which is the method the House, as a whole, is prepared to accept, and which will put an end to the grievance." He supposed he was guilty of weakness. He supposed the Government were chargeable with weakness. But which was the true weakness — a weak obstinacy which adhered to an original and impracticable proposal, or the assumption of a position which involved them in sitting and listening to reproaches which were heaped upon them, and of change of mind, of policy, and of vacillation. Of the two forms of weakness he, for one, would rather be charged with the weakness of honestly stating that he preferred one method, but that he abandoned it in

  1383
  favour of another method because the latter was preferred by the House as a whole, and that the object of their policy was the statesmanlike object of going as far as legislation could fairly and properly go in order to meet the views of those in whose interest it was proposed.
  *MR. SHACKLETONsaid that as one of the wild animals who previously had been considered a very mild person he ventured to say a few words in this most interesting debate.
  MR. BONAR LAW: I did not apply the term "wild animal" to the hon. Member.
  *MR. SHACKLETONsaid he was quite certain of that. The hon. Gentleman had not been a trade union leader. If he had been he would know that they had to hear harder words than those. Might he, on behalf of his friends who sat beside him, and his colleagues on the other side—for whom, including his right hon. friend the Member for Morpeth, he spoke in this matter, saying they were agreed in accepting the proposition which the Government had brought forward to cover the grievance which they felt? There was no dissension in their ranks in this matter. Might he say also how thankful they were for the manly speech they had just listened to? He honestly thought the Attorney-General had shown courage in facing this matter as he had done. They were told that there was to be protection for the wrong-doer, and that the policy of getting at trade union funds instead of at the guilty person was the preferable one. He was speaking for forty odd trade union officials in this House, and he could say that they felt that the best course to prevent breaches of the law was to make the men who broke the law responsible individually. As he had said in Committee he said now, whether it was a man put on picket duty or a member of the Executive Committee of his union who wilfully broke the law, he ought to bear the responsibility for his action rather than put the responsibility on irresponsible men. That was the policy of the Conservative Government in 1875; it was the policy of the Liberal Government in 1871, and he, and those for whom he spoke, believed that it ought to be the policy of the
  1384
  Liberal Government to-day. It had been suggested that by this action they were asking for more than the ante-Taff Vale position. The right hon. Member for St. George's, Hanover Square, had said that the ante-Taff Vale position was fully understood; that there was no dispute amongst learned gentlemen as to what it was until the House of Lords' decision; but then the right hon. Gentleman went on to make the statement which showed what the cleavage was between hon. Members on the two sides of the House — that "in some measure" that position ought to be restored. The Labour Party were against those who only desired to restore the ante-Taff-Vale position "in some measure." Was it a noble thing for any hon. Members to take advantage of a legal decision to whittle down the rights which members of trade unions had enjoyed for thirty years? There was no reason why the full position should not be restored to them. On all hands there was no question as to the position the trade unionist had held and the way they had used it. As he had already stated, it had been said that they were claiming something more than the ante-Taff-Vale position, but he distinctly maintained that they did not ask to be relieved of any liabilities imposed by Section 9 of the Act of 1871. On all commercial transactions and in everything connected with property they said that the ordinary law should be applied to them. The hon. Member for Dulwich had referred to the shipbuilding dispute on the Clyde. As to the facts stated by the hon. Member he was not able to judge. The hon. Gentleman had said that skilled men employed in Clyde yards earned more in a day than the unskilled in a week. That might be some reflection on their employers, but let him say that the unskilled men in that district might have been somewhat to blame, because he was informed that they were practically unorganised. The hon. Member, while stating the large amount earned by the skilled workmen, did not refer to the deductions which had to be paid out of their wages to certain men who worked for them. The full facts on that point ought to be known. However, he would insist that it was to the interest of those unskilled workmen that this Bill should become law; and he did not think that the hon. Gentleman would

  1385
  have the support of the unskilled workmen in opposing it. As a matter of fact, the Trade Union Congress was composed of almost equal numbers of skilled and unskilled workmen, and if any class of workmen wanted this Bill more than another it was the unskilled men. Indeed, they had suffered more from the Taff Vale decision than the skilled men. Again, they were told that the employers did not want to do illegal things; that they did not want the privilege which this Bill conferred upon them of being put on an equal footing with their workmen. In his opinion there ought to be equal privileges, but things were done every day by the employers which, if done by workmen, would soon be stopped. What was the position of the men? They could not do things in secret; everything was necessarily open when 50,000 or more men were involved. Everything was speedily made known to the employers by their agents or others; but the employers worked in secret. Acts which trade unions were prevented from doing by law to-day were being committed by employers. He did not say by every employer. He had a document in his hand which proved that such was the case, in one instance at any rate. This was a letter from the Employers' Association in the engineering trade to the secretaries of local associations in reference to a strike of moulders in the Halifax districts and was as follows—
  "Dear Sir,—A strike of iron moulders in the Halifax district is on. The iron moulders recently gave notice of a demand for an advance in wages of 2s. a week. A conference was held and the workmen decided to cease work on the expiry of their notice. They have done so. The wages rate is 38s. per week. Signed, Thomas Biggot, Secretary."
  The letter itself was just an ordinary letter of advice, but there was a memorandum which stated —
  "When writing your members it is desirable to advise them of the strike in general terms, and a list of strikers should be enclosed without remark."
  And that memorandum was not attached to the letter in the ordinary way. Then there was a list of the names of the 170 men affected sent all over the country. Not one of those men need apply for work anywhere. There was no law to stop that sort of thing, for it was done secretly. When these men applied for
  1386
  work they were asked what their name was and where they came from, and then were informed that no workmen were wanted. That meant that if they did not accept the employers' terms the men must starve. Let there be no mistake about the attitude of the Labour Party. They believed that the Government position was the right one. It was a question of method —a method which organised labour had adopted after long years of consideration and experience. If the Government had seen their way to listen to the practical side of the question as well as the legal, and if the House decided in their favour, who could complain? He wanted the House to remember that practically this measure had been passed after Second Beading debate on three occasions, and always by increasing majorities—on the last occasion by a majority of 350. The Labour Party were going to support the Government in the position they had taken up in every sense of the word.
  *MR. HERBERTsaid that they had heard a deal of declamation on the other side of the House about trade unions being in a privileged position. It occured to him therefore to ask if they approved of the existence of trade unions or would suppress them if they could? If the value of trade unions was admitted, it was even waste of time to declaim about privilege; it would be more useful to turn their attention to the real practical point what privileges they were to have. Trade unions were of necessity privileged institutions. Under the ordinary law they would be illegal associations; and they could have no existence unless special legislation were passed in their interests authorising their existence. Indeed the very Amendment of the hon. Member was one which would place trade unions in a privileged position, setting them as regards the law of agency in a position more advantageous than any other body or person. No doubt the clause of the hon. Member was drawn upon an intelligible principle, viz., that a principal was responsible for the acts of his agent, and they had heard read out with considerable unction the words of the Royal Commissioners, in which they pointed out the universal application of that doctrine. That doctrine was perfectly proper but it depended

  1387
  solely upon considerations of public policy, because nobody could suggest that a principal who had instructed his agent that he was not to perform a particular act was morally responsible for the act of that agent if he went against his instructions. He claimed in support of this Bill the declarations of the ex-Colonial Secretary that he only wished to see trade unions made responsible when they were morally responsible. Could it be said that the member of a trade union numbering many thousands was morally responsible for every act of the committee of that body, acting in defiance of the conditions under which they were appointed? It came to be simply a question of public policy, and it might well be that in the case of trade unions, stronger considerations might arise which might make it proper in their case to depart from the general rule and not make them liable for the acts of the Committee. There was a great deal in what had been said by the hon. Member for Clitheroe that they were much more likely to get the affairs of trade unions conducted without rashness if the individuals who took action were made
  personally responsible, instead of being put in the position of feeling that they had at their back the whole of the funds of the society and could fall back upon them. It seemed to him, however, that the argument which could be drawn from public policy was an extremely strong one in favour of the Government proposals. If members of trade unions found that their contributions were, owing to rash acts of the officials, diverted from the purpose for which they were contributed, e.g., were paid away in damages instead of being applied to their legitimate objects, they would refuse to join the unions. And if they desired, as he did, to see trade unions strong, it seemed to him a necessary condition that they should free the trade union funds from liability for wrongful acts of the Committee. On the whole he thought the proposal of the Government was the best.
  Question put, "That the clause be read a second time."
  The House divided:—Ayes 79; Noes, 372. (Division List No. 363.)

  AYES.

  Arkwright, John Stanhope

  Fell, Arthur

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

  Balcarres, Lord

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Nield, Herbert

  Baldwin, Alfred

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Parker, Sir Gilbert (Gravesend)

  Balfour, RtHn.A.J.CityLond.)

  Forster, Henry William

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Pease, Herb. Pike (Darlington)

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester)

  Haddock, George R.

  Percy, Earl

  Beach, Hn. Michael HughHicks

  Hambro, Charles Eric

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Rawlinson, John Fredk. Peel

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hardy, Laur. (Kent, Ashford)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield, Ecclesall)

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H.B.

  Salter, Arthur Clavell

  Bull, Sir William James

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Hills, J. W.

  Smith, F. E.(Liverpool, Walton)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Hunt, Rowland

  Smith, Hon. W.F.D. (Strand)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn. Sir John H

  Starkey, John R.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Keswick, William

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Cave,George

  King, Sir HenrySeymour(Hull)

  Talbot, Rt.Hn.J.G. (Oxf'dUniv

  Cavendish, Rt.Hon. Victor C.W.

  Lambton, Hn. Frederick Wm.

  Thomson, W. Mitchell-(Lanark

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor)

  Lane-Fox, G. R.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.)

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Turnour, Viscount

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lcwisham

  Lockwood, Rt.Hn. Lt.-Col.A.R.

  Wolff, Gustav Wilhelm

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  Long, Col. Chas. W. (Evesham)

  Wortley, Rt. Hon. C.B. Stuart-

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Long, Rt. Hn. Walter (DublinS

  Younger, George

  Craig, Chas. Curtis (Antrim, S.)

  Lonsdale, John Brownlee

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon. Alfred

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Magnus, Sir Philip

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Morpeth, Viscount

  NOES.

  Abraham, Wm. (Cork, N.E.)

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Alden, Percy

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Asquith, Rt. Hn. Herb. Henry

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Astbury, John Meir

  Davies, M. Vaughan (Cardigan)

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Davies, Timothy (Fulbam)

  Hudson, Walter

  Bating, Godfrey (Isle ofWight)

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Barker, John

  Delany, William

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Barlow, John E. (Somerset)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Dewar, John A. (Inverness-sh.)

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Dickinson, W.H.(St. Pancras,N

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Barnes, G. N.

  Dickson-Poynder, Sir John P.

  Jackson, R. S.

  Beale, W. P.

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Beauchamp, E.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Beaumont, Hn W. C. B(Hexham

  Dodd, W. H.

  Jenkins, J.

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  Bell, Richard

  Duckworth, James

  Jones, Sir D. B. (Swansea)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Benn, Sir J Williams (Devonp't

  Duncan, Robert(Lanark,Govan

  Jones, Wm. (Carnarvonshire)

  Benn, W.(T'w'r Hamlets,S. Geo

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Jowett, F. W.

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Dunne, Maj. E. Martin(Walsall

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  Bertram, Julius

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford)

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Kelley, George D.

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex Maldon)

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Billson, Alfred

  Elibank, Master of

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Birrell, Rt. Hon. Augustine

  Ellis, Rt. Hn. John Edward

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.)

  Erskine, David C.

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Bolton, T. D. (Derbyshire, N.E

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Boulton, A. C. E. (Ramsey)

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Lambert, George

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lamont, Norman

  Brace, William

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Law, Hugh A. (Donegal, W.)

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Branch, James

  Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

  Leese, Sir J. F. (Accrington)

  Brigg, John

  Freeman, Thomas Freeman

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Bright, J. A.

  Fuller, John Michael E.

  Lever, A. Levy (Essex, Harwch

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lever, W. H. (Cheshire,Wirral)

  Brodie, H. C.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Levy, Maurice

  Brooke, Stopford

  Gill, A. H.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Brunner, J. F. L.(Lancs.,Leigh)

  Ginnell, L.

  Lough, Thomas

  Brunner, Rt.HnSirJT(Cheshire

  Gladstone, Rt. Hn. Herb. John

  Lundon, W.

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs)

  Glover, Thomas

  Lupton. Arnold

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Lynch, H. B.

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Grant, Corrie

  Macdonald, JM(Falkirk B'ghs)

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Mackarness, Frederic C.

  Burnyeat. W. J. D.

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  Maclean, Donald

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney Chas.

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J,

  Byles, William Pollard

  Guest, Hon. Ivor Churchill

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Cairns, Thomas

  Gulland, John W.

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S

  Cameron, Robert

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  MacVeigh, Chas.(Donegal, E.)

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Carr-Gomm, H. W.

  Hall, Frederick

  M'Crae, George

  Causton, Rt. Hn. Richard K.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hn. Lewis

  M'Kean, John

  Cawley, Frederick

  Hardie, J. Keir(MerthyrTydvil

  M'Killop, W.

  Chance, Frederick William

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  M'Laren, H. D. (Stafford, W.)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Harrington, Timothy

  Maddison, Frederick

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Harwood, George

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Cleland, J. W.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Mansfield, H. Rendall (Lincoln)

  Clough, W.

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Marks, G. Croydon(Launceston)

  Clynes, J. R.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Marnham, F. J.

  Coats,Sir T.Glen(Renfrew, W.)

  Hay, Hon. Claude George

  Massie, J.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Masterman, C. F. G.

  Collins, Sir W. J. (S.Pancras, W

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Meagher, Michael

  Corbett,C.H.(SussexEGrinst'd)

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Cornwall. Sir Edwin A.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Menzies, Walter

  Cotton, Sir H.J. S.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Cowan, W. H.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Cox, Harold

  Higham, John Sharp

  Mond, A.

  Craig. Herb. J. (Tynemouth)

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Cremer, William Randal

  Hodge, John

  Montagu, E. S.

  Crombie, John William

  Hogan, Michael

  Mooney, J. J.

  Crooks. William

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Crossley, William J.

  Hope, W. Bateman (SomersetN

  Morley, Rt. Hon. John

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Morrell, Philip

  1390

  1391

  Morse, L. L.

  Roberts, Chas. H. (Lincoln)

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Murnaghan, George

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Thorne, William

  Murphy, John

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Tomkinson, James

  Myer, Horatio

  Robertson. Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Robertson, SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

  Toulmin, George

  Napier, T. B.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Trevelyan, Chas. Philips

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Robinson, S.

  Ure, Alexander

  Newnes, Sir George (Swansea

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Verney, F. W.

  Nicholls, George

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Vivian, Henry

  Nicholson, Chas. N. (Doncast'r

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Wadsworth, J.

  Nolan, Joseph

  Rose, Charles Day

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Norman, Henry

  Rowlands, J.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Runciman, Walter

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Rutherford, V. H. (Brentford)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Nuttall, Harry

  Samuel, Herb. L. (Cleveland)

  Ward, John(Stoke-upon-Trent)

  O'Brien, K. (Tipperary, Mid.

  Samuel, S. M. (Whitechapel)

  Wardle, George J.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  O'Connor, Jas. (Wicklow, W.)

  Schwann, SirC.E. (Manchester)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Scott, A.H(Ashton-under-Lyne

  Wason, John Cathcart(Orkney)

  O'Grady, J.

  Sears, J. E.

  Waterlow,D. S.

  O'Kelly, James(Roscommon,N.

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Watt, H. Anderson

  O'Malley, William

  Shackleton, David James

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  O'Mara, James

  Shaw, Chas. Edw. (Stafford)

  Weir. James Galloway

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Shaw, Rt, Hn. T. (Hawick B.)

  Whitbread, Howard

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Partington, Oswald

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Paul, Herbert

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Pearce, William (Limehouse)

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester)

  Snowden, P.

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Philipps, J.Wynford(Pembroke

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Wiles, Thomas

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Williams, Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Stanger, H. Y.

  Williams, Osmond (Merioneth)

  Pollard, Dr.

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lyulph (Chesh.

  Williamson, A.

  Powell, Sir Francis Sharp

  Steadman, W. C.

  Wilson, Hn. C.H.W.(HuIl, W.)

  Price, C. E.(Edinb'gh, Central)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Radford, G. H.

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Wilson, J. W.(Worcestersh. N.)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Straus, B. S. (Mile End)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Wood,T. M'Kinnon

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Sullivan, Donal

  Woodhouse,Sir J T(Huddersf'd

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford)

  Summerbell, T.

  Young, Samuel

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Rees, J. D.

  Taylor John W. (Durham)

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe)

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Richards, Thos. (W. Monm'th)

  Tennant, H. J. (Berwickshire)

  Richards, T. F. (Wolverh'mpt'

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen, E.)

  Richardson, A.

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Thomas, David Alfred(Merthyr

  *VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHin moving "that this Act shall not extend to Ireland," said he was not acting in any spirit of hostility to the trade unions. It was a common device of hon. Gentlemen opposite when conducting elections to pose as the champions of the Party of Labour, and to say that the Unionist Party was not. That he denied. He maintained that the Party to which he belonged had by their legislation proved the greater friend of the Labour Party. He was glad to believe that it was the recognised view throughout the country that trade unions in the past had proved most beneficial institutions. He would be sorry if in the future they
  1392
  should not continue to be so. He was in a position to say, in connection with the industry with which he was connected, that the moderate and beneficial influence exerted by the leaders of the trade unions had led to strikes being avoided again and again. If this Bill ever came into force, the leaders of the trade unions, he feared, would place themselves in a dangerous position with regard to their followers, and they would not be able to exercise that pressure on those for whom they were acting that hon. Members below the gangway had been able to exercise upon the Government. He thought this Act should not extend to Ireland. He did not believe that there was a universal demand

  1393
  in Ireland that this Act should come into operation there. It was obvious that "trade dispute" was a very wide term, and with regard to Ireland, special difficulties might arise. He could conceive an interpretation of "trade disputes" which might lead to an accentuation of the difficulties between landlord and tenant, a result which he was sure that no one in the House desired to see. Another most important point was that there was a system, which he believed was only in vogue in Ireland, known by the name of "boycotting." It was perfectly clear that if this Act came into force in Ireland those who engaged in boycotting would be immune from the law. That would be a most anomalous position, and although he was sure that hon. Members in this House would not, it could not be denied that there were men who would take advantage of it if they found that they would be immune from the law, and that the Act extended to boycotting. He therefore hoped that the Attorney-General would see his way to accept this clause, although he (Viscount: Castlereagh) was not in a position to exercise that pressure which his hon. friends below the Gangway had exercised with such success.
  New clause—
  "This Act shall not extend to Ireland."— (Viscount Castlereagh.)
  Brought up, and read the first time.
  Motion made, and Question proposed, "That the clause be read a second time."
  *MR. BUTCHERsaid it was not often that a layman desired to take part in a debate on a lawyers' Bill. But this Bill, though it was of a technical character, raised questions of principle affecting the fundamental rights of citizenship. He did not propose to deal with larger questions but to confine himself to the new clause. This clause which stood on the paper in the name of the Attorney-General declared that, "in this Act and in the Conspiracy and Protection of Property Act, 1875, the expression 'trade dispute' means any dispute which is connected with the employment or non-employment, or the terms of employment, or with the conditions of
  1394
  labour of any workman." It seemed to him that the whole complexion of the Bill was altered by that clause. It was no longer a mere Trade Disputes Bill., It would also embrace in its scope agrarian combinations in Ireland. It would affect the relations between landlord and tenant indirectly in this way, that any person employed as a labourer by an obnoxious landlord or an unpopular tenant, would lose the protection of the law he had hitherto enjoyed, and the door would be open to every form of boycotting and intimidation. Those who remembered the history of the Land League and who lived through those old bad days would remember how the League always claimed that it should be treated as a form of trade union, that agrarian warfare should be regarded merely as a trade dispute, and the Plan of Campaign as a strike. This Bill would arm an agrarian league with almost precisely the same powers as were exercised by the Land League. Nor must it be forgotten that in Ireland boycotting was not merely a rare and desperate expedient to be resorted to in highly exceptional circumstances. It had become a policy and principle of action. It was a blight upon honest industry, nor had a more terrible engine of oppression ever been invented. It was quite true that it had fallen into disuse for some years past, but quite recently it had been revived again in the case of the grass lands in the west of Ireland. Could there be a more unfortunate thing at the moment when the Government hoped to effect a peaceable land settlement in Ireland, than to bring into operation a law which might prove so dangerous an instrument in the hands of an excitable peasantry? He was the only Unionist Member now in the House who had lived in the south of Ireland through the days from 1879 to 1887 when the Land League exercised their fatal power. He had lived side by side with men, rich and poor, who had groaned under that tyranny, and yet were silent, voiceless, and helpless to throw it off. He knew the phrases under which boycotting was veiled, "exclusive dealing," "peaceful porsuasion," "moral pressure"; but he also know the realities—the social ostracism, the hunted life, the ruined business, the maimed cattle, the children debarred

  1395
  access to school, the living refused the necessaries of life, the dead denied a coffin and a grave [A NATIONAL MEMBER: "Repeat that in Kerry."] He had said the same thing in Kerry when it was more dangerous to say it than it was now, and he would repeat it in Kerry to-morrow if he were there.
  MR. DELANY: It is a slander.
  MR. FLYNN: It is worse than a slander; it's a lie. ["Oh, oh."]
  *MR. SPEAKER: Order, order. The expression which fell from the hon. Member for Cork and which reached my ears I think he must know is not permissible. I ask him to withdraw it.
  MR. FLYNN: In deference to your ruling, Sir, I withdraw it, whatever my opinions are.
  *MR. BUTCHERcontinuing, submitted that it would be a disastrous lesson to Ireland that one class should claim immunity from the law, and be free to oppress all others, and that without the risk of a halfpenny of damages. In conclusion, he remarked that it was a fine prelude to the Home Rule Bill for the Government to bring in such a proposal as this. Was it not a sinister comment on their intention to govern Ireland according to Irish ideas?
  MR. JOHN REDMONDsaid it was not unnatural that after the speech delivered by the hon. Member he should want to say a few words. The hon. Member's speech had come as a rude shock to him—that the hon. Member on that occasion should lay out for himself the utterly unworthy role of standing up as an Irishman and slandering his own people. What was the House to understand from the speech of the hon. Member? His speech was a prelude to a possible discussion on Home Rule next year. There was no reality in his speech except that apparently he desired now at this time of day to renew the slanders which. had been dead for twenty-five years. He drew a picture which never was true, even twenty-five years ago and which, so far as the present state of things was concerned, was a ludicrous travesty of the
  1396
  real facts and a gross slander upon the people whom he had spoken of as savages.
  *MR. BUTCHER: I have said nothing of the kind. [Cries of "Withdraw."]
  MR. F. E. SMITH: The hon. Member for Waterford having imputed words to the hon. Member for Cambridge University which were not uttered by him, ought not those words to be withdrawn?
  *MR. SPEAKER: I think the hon. Member is mistaken. The hon. and learned Member was only drawing an inference from what was said, and did not use the words as a quotation.
  MR. JOHN REDMONDcontinuing, said the hon. Member had said that his fellow-countrymen were guilty of mutilation of cattle and persecuted in life and even in death. If that was not a description of a savage he did not know what it was. The hon. Member had said he lived among these savages in the county of Kerry that he had lived on good terms with these people who, although they differed altogether from his political views and creed, had treated him with courtesy and neighbourly good feeling. For the hon. Gentleman to come down to this House and speak of them as though they were no better than savages, was a disgraceful and unworthy part for him to play.
  MR. T. L. CORBETTasked the Speaker if it was in order for one hon. Gentleman to charge another hon. Member with playing a disgraceful part. If that language was allowed to go on he did not know where it would end.
  *MR. SPEAKER: I would not be quite certain that the hon. Member has not used the word himself. Whether that be so or not, I do not soc any reason to call upon the hon. Member to withdraw.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I wish to explain that I have never used the word "disgraceful" as applied to an hon. Member. I may use it: in future though.
  MR. JOHN REDMOND,continuing, said he could conceive no conduct more unworthy and disgraceful than for a man to come to this House as the hon.

  1397
  Member did from Ireland, which he knew was in a state of profound peace, and where he knew there was less crime than in Scotland, England, or Wales, and endeavour to prevent the House giving to the people of Ireland the same rights and privileges as to the people of England on the ground that the former were guilty of crime and outrage and the conduct of savages. It would be bad enough in an English Member who did not quite know what he was talking about but when it was done by an Irishman who said that he lived in the country, and who therefore knew how utterly false it was, his conduct in his (Mr. Redmond's) opinion was unworthy and disgraceful. He had risen simply for the purpose of making a protest against this prelude to the discussions that would be raised on the question of Irish reform that might be introduced by the Government in the coming year. This was the plan of campaign that was to be set on foot to raise again the base passions and absurd calumnies of twenty-five years ago. He was glad to say that a change had come over public opinion and public knowledge since then in reference to Ireland, and this plan of campaign would fail. he wondered what the hon. Gentleman the Member for Belfast would say? he represented the workmen of Belfast. He had been returned by those who constituted the trade unions of Belfast. Was he going to join in this attempt to deprive the workers of Belfast or Dublin or anywhere else of the rights and privileges which the House was about to confer upon workmen in England? This cry had come from an Irishman who could not get a seat in Ireland, and a noble Lord who sat for an English constituency. It would not appeal to representatives of workers even who sat as Unionists in this House. The Irish Party had done their best in the past for working men in this country, and he was sure that English working men representatives would not tolerate this attempt to deprive Irish working men of the privileges which they were getting, especially when that attempt was made under cover of a calumny such as they had just heard.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid he did not rise to touch upon the question whether or not trade unions, strictly so-called, in
  1398
  Ireland ought, or ought not, to com within the provisions of this Bill. That was not the point of his hon. friend's speech. They all knew, and regretted that in Ireland the industrial element was comparatively undeveloped as compared with England. It was true that his hon. friend used strong language, that he painted his picture in no soft or attractive colours. But the question was whether the picture he painted was or was no true to the facts of Irish life, or some aspects of Irish life in the memory of even the younger Members of the House He confessed that he had no aquaintance with what was going on in Ireland at the present time. [A NATIONALIST MEMBER: You never knew.] But he was told by gentlemen who had higher pretensions to knowledge of Ireland than he claimed that there were parts in which at all events some of the charges levelled against it might unhappily have some foundation in fact. NATIONALIST cries of "No, no."] That was a subject, however, on which he thought the ordinary machinery of Question and Answer in the House would be capable of eliciting information from the Minister responsible for Irish Government; but that the picture painted by his hon. friend had boon true in the past was absolutely certain. ["No," and NATIONALIST cries of "Piggott" and "Sheridan."] No cool observer would ever doubt the truth of that picture, but that it was universal over Ireland at one time neither he nor his hon. friend would assert. There were, however, large parts of Ireland where the picture was absolutely true in all its lineaments. he firmly believed that there had been an enormous improvement in the last twenty-five years, and he believed that it had been steadily going on. he was one of those optimists who thought that the progress was not going to stop within our lifetime, but that the time would come when that crimelessness which in certain respects the hon. Member rightly claimed for the agricultural districts in Ireland, would extend to all matters of dispute between Irishmen, and that the conflicts among the different classes in the community would not be sullied by the crime which had too often marked them in the past. In this Bill, however, the House had to consider what the condition of Ireland was and recently had been; and if it were true, as he firmly

  1399
  believed, that such deeds as his hon. friend described had indeed been committed, that the condition of society he had painted existed, ought not the House to think twice, aye, many times, before it extended to a country which in these respects had shown itself less capable of self-control, less capable of dealing with these class difficulties and trade contests, what the Government themselves admitted to be special legislation, in favour of these organised bodies to whom the practice of crimes in the past might have been attributed? The hon. Member for Waterford seemed to think that this debate had some connection, remote but real, with the controversies which doubtless this House would be plunged into next session, if the Government brought forward their promised legislation with reference to Home Rule. But this was wholly alien from those controversies. Those controversies would be long and bitter enough when they arose. Let the House not anticipate them. What they had to deal with now was a subject of great difficulty and complexity. But he sincerely thought that if this Bill was really going to give these agrarian organisations in Ireland the immunities or the privileges which they would have abused in the past, and, knowing what they did of their general character, for which there was no security in the Bill for the future, then the House was really facing perils of which they had had no experience in this country in the last twenty years. In these circumstances not only was the form of the Amendment justified, but the speech with which his hon. friend supported it was not open to the charge of exaggeration and error which, in vehement terms, had been brought against him by the hon. and learned Member.
  *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid that an extraordinary Amendment had been supported by extraordinary arguments leading to a remarkable debate. It had been pointed out that if this Amendment was adopted the trade unionists of Ireland would not enjoy the advantages which were enjoyed by trade unionists in this country. The hon. Member said that that was not what he wanted; but on the assumption that the Bill was to apply to agricultural combinations the hon. Member had indulged his imagination in drawing a picture of the disastrous
  1400
  consequences that would result if the Land League were endowed with immunity and armed with the powers which this legislation conferred. He thought that the hon. Member might have taken the trouble to ascertain what was the definition of a trade union. The Bill did not propose to alter the definition of a trade union, nor did it intend to enlarge the scope of trade disputes as always understood and applied by the Courts in this country and in Ireland. The definition of trade union appeared in the Act of 1876 and was adopted in the present Bill. It had never been suggested that agricultural combinations should come within the scope of that definition, or that they should be entitled to the privileges which this legislation conferred. He had framed a definition of a trade dispute which was clearly confined to the disputes between workmen and their masters, and could not be stretched to include a combination of tenants where the question in dispute might be the terms of the tenancy or the system of holding the land.
  MK. KEIR HARDIEsaid that to cut Ireland out of the operation of this clause would be a very serious injustice indeed to the trade unionists of that country. It had been suggested that the Bill, if it became law, would apply to various combinations of men, and that under it there would be crimes done in Ireland such as the mutilation of cattle. He would point out that the Bill did not authorise crime; and even if it should extend to combinations of farmers, he would say that it might be gathered from the debate that took place a few evenings ago that farmers were not without need of the benefit of protection from the landlord class. Labour Members could not possibly vote against the inclusion of Ireland within the operation of the Bill. The Leader of the Nationalist Party and his colleagues had at great inconvenience on a previous occasion come to the House to support the Labour Party, and it would be an act of the utmost ingratitude on the part of Labour Members not to support them on the present occasion.
  MR. SLOANsaid he did not understand that any combination like the Land League would come under the

  1401
  Bill, but he did understand that there were tons of thousands of working men in the north of Ireland who had a right to come within its provisions. Even though he was the only Ulster representative who would stand up for that right, he was quite prepared to do so. He was not directly or indirectly connected with any trade union, but he endeavoured to represent the working people of Belfast. Hon. Members who represented other constituencies in the north of Ireland would not contradict the statement that there was no meeting which could be held in the north of Ireland which would support the Amendment now before the House. If the inclusion of Ireland in this Bill would lead to serious boycotting, intimidation, the maiming of cattle, and the giving of power to organisations which would abuse that power, there might be something to be said for the argument that Ireland should be excluded, but that was not what the Bill was going to do. The House had it on the authority of the Attorney-General, who had just spoken, that it did not give that power. He supposed that any hon. Member had a right to change his mind. He did not claim to be an infallible representative, and if he had done wrong and saw the folly of it he considered that the more honourable thing to do was to adopt the right position rather than to continue doing wrong. He opposed this Amendment from another point of view, namely, as a Unionist. Why should not Ireland have to a share in the benefits which were given this country? If Members were true to their Unionist principles how could they justify the exclusion of Ireland from the Bill. Before he rose to speak it was suggested to him by the hon. Member for North Down that he should go to the other side of the House.
  MR. T. L. CORBETT: I rise to order. The hon. Member for South Belfast says the Bill does not deal with boycotting. If the hon. Member with all his knowledge of Ireland could say that, I think he should go across the floor of the House to do so——
  *MR. SPEAKER: The hon. Member is not entitled to interpolate a speech.
  MR. SLOANsaid the Attorney-General had stated that organisations in
  1402
  connection with land agitation did not come within the scope of the Bill; why, then, should the trade unionists of Ireland be excluded? One great reason why he would not cross the floor of the House was that there was no room on that side. He was sent to the House as a Unionist in 1902 and 1906, and he did not see why he should change his seat. Of course if there was a memorial signed by the Opposition asking him to take a seat elsewhere than on the Unionist side of the House, he should try to find a seat somewhere else, but it would not be on the other side. He felt his position very keenly, because he realised that the position of affairs in Ireland was not satisfactory from the official Unionist point of view, and they did not wish to give any power to anybody else. If any Member representing an Ulster constituency would prove that the Bill would give powers facilitating boycotting and intimidation and all that kind of thing, he was prepared to turn round and say he would support the Amendment. But the fact was, that the Bill did not do this. He represented a great mass of public opinion in the north of Ireland and he had no hesitation in giving and he would be able to justify the vote he was about to give.
  SIR E. CARSONdid not suppose anybody could argue that so far as trade unions were concerned they could be placed on a different footing in Ireland as compared with England. He knew perfectly well that his noble friend who moved this Amendment never had less intention of opposing what were called the ordinary trade union purposes, or of suggesting that trade unionists in Ireland should be put in a different position from the trade unionists in this country. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh."] Hon. Members opposite might think otherwise if they liked. He did not know by what other means than such an Amendment his noble friend could have got from the Attorney-General the very satisfactory statement which he had made, that it was not the intention of the Government that the provisions of the law in relation to conspiracy, boycotting, and other matters which were legalised by the section were not to apply to such cases as had ordinarily arisen in Ireland, viz., questions in rotation to disputes between landlord and tenant, and the

  1403
  respective organisations which governed those disputes. That was exactly the declaration which his noble friend wanted in moving this Amendment. It was extremely satisfactory that the declaration should have been made. Whether the Amendment to be proposed by the Attorney-General would really carry out his intention was another question, because he must not suppose that the matter was so very simple. Even if landlord and tenant did not come within the scope of the Bill, the definition would not cover some of the cases that arose in Ireland. It did not rest in the action of landlord and tenant. It went into the case of men employed by shopkeepers in towns. The next question was whether the broad words set down must not be utilised to protect organisations to which shopmen belonged. They might think that in regard to a man who was working for a boycotted landlord, or a man who had taken an evicted farm, they had a right to lay down the conditions of labour for him, which brought the organisation within the meaning of the Bill, though it was intended for a different class of cases and not that particular class. He took the assurance of the hon. and learned Gentleman that if any Amendment were necessary it would be made, and under those circumstances he asked his noble friend to be satisfied with the statement of the Attorney-General.
  VISCOUNT CASTLEREAGHasked leave to withdraw the proposed new clause. [Cries of "No."]
  MR. J. P. NANNETTIsaid he wished to join the hon. Member for South Belfast in saying that the working-men of Ireland had cause to desire the application of this Bill to that country. he could not suppose that the House would accept the Amendment which, he believed, had not been brought forward for the purpose of dealing with the question raised in the Bill, but to raise a discussion on the relationship between landlord and tenant. The Amendment had been used for Party purposes and to embitter the feeling between the democracy and the "landocracy" of Ireland. What the hon. Member for Cambridge University had stated was a travesty of what existed in Ireland, and he expressed his surprise and regret that the Leader of the Opposi-
  1404
  tion should have lent himself to endorse the language employed. He went further and said that the hon. Member for Cambridge University by his statements had badly repaid the kindness with which he was received by the people of Kern, amongst whom he lived.
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid that the hon. Member's remarks were not relevant to the clause under discussion.
  MR. J. P. NANNETTIsaid that the trade unions of Ireland and the Trades Congress of Ireland, which embraced Catholics and Protestants, Nationalists and Unionists, had made a universal demand that this Bill should pass, and that the same immunity should be given them as before the Taff Vale decision. He congratulated the hon. Member for South Belfast on the manly course which he had taken on this matter, a course which would receive the endorsement of the workmen in that great city.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGthought he was right in saying that the hon. Member in moving this Amendment had no intention of depriving the trade unionists of Ireland of any right that was to be given to the trade unionists of this country. He might say that since the Attorney-General had spoken the air had been cleared to a considerable extent; but any one who denied that boycotting in all its cruel and horrible forms existed in Ireland at the present moment——
  *MR. SPEAKERsaid that after the statement of the Attorney-General the debate ought to be limited to the real point at issue.
  MR. CHARLES CRAIGsaid that the Attorney-General had told the House that, so far as he could see, the clause which he proposed would not touch the case which the Unionist Members from Ireland had in their mind. The right hon. Member for Dublin University had gone some way to accept that assurance, but with the greatest respect for the legal attainments of both hon. and learned Gentlemen he had some doubt in his mind whether an attempt would not be shortly made to boycott in Ireland under the shield of this clause. He appealed to the Attorney-General to make it

  1405
  perfectly certain before the Bill left this House that the cases which the Unionist Members had in their mind would be effectually and beyond any possibility of doubt excluded from the Bill.
  MR. MURPHYsaid he represented a large number of working-men in his constituency who were concerned to see that this Act in all its aspects should be extended to Ireland; and he regretted that this Amendment had been supported by an hon. Gentleman who came from county Kerry.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid that they all accepted the statement of the Attorney-General that this Bill applied only to trade unions and would not apply to what was called agrarian matters. The hon. Member

  AYES.

  Beach, Hn. Michael HughHicks

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr.Jeremiah Mac Veagh and Mr. John Ward.

  Bull, Sir William James

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Finch, Rt. Hon George H.

  NOES.

  Abraham, Win. (Cork, N.E.)

  Brooke, Stopford

  Dodd, W. H.

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Brunner, J.FL.(Lanes., Leigh)

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Alden, Percy

  Brunner, RtHnSirJ.T(Cheshire

  Duckworth, James

  Allen, A. Acland (Christchurch)

  Bryce,Rt. Hn.James(Aberdeen

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Allen, Charles P. (Strond)

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Duncan, Robert (LanarkGovan

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Atherloy-Jones, L.

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Buxton Rt.Hn. Sydney Charles

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

  Byles, William Pollard

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight)

  Cairns, Thomas

  Elibank, Master of

  Barker, John

  Castleroagh, Viscount

  Ellis, Rt. Hn. John Edward

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Chance, Frederick William

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Eve, Harry Trclawney

  Barnes, G. N.

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Evcrett, R. Lacey

  Beale, W. P.

  Clarke, C. Goddard.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Beauchamp, E.

  Clough, W.

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Beaumont,Hn.W.C.B.(H'xh'm

  Clynes, J. R.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Bell, Richard

  Coats, Sir T.Glen(Renfrew, W.)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Benn, W. (T'w'rHamlets.SGeo.

  Collins, SirWm.J.(S.Pancras,W

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Corbett,CH(Susscx, EGrinst'd)

  Gill, A. H.

  Bertram, Julius

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Glover, Thomas

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Bethell, T. R. (Essex, Maldon)

  Cox, Harold

  Grant, Corrie

  Billson, Alfred

  Cremer, William Randal

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough

  Birrell, Rt. Hn. Augustine

  Crooks, William

  Hall, Frederick

  Black, Arthur W. (Bedfordsh.

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Bolton, T. D. (Dorbyshire.N.E.

  Crossley, William J.

  Hardie, J.Keir(MerthyrTydvil)

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Harrington, Timothy

  Brace, William

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Hart-Davies, T.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Branch, James

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Harwood. George

  Brigg, John

  Delany, William

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Bright, J. A.

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Brocklehurst, W.B.

  Dickinson, W.H(St Pancras,N.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Brodie, H. C.

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  who moved the Amendment had said that once assured of that he would wish to withdraw the clause, but he would ask the Attorney-General to consider whether the words in the Bill might not be open to misconstruction in Ireland. He reminded the Attorney-General that Clauses 1, 2 and 3 did not refer to trade unions at all, but to any individual acting in the course of a trade dispute; and it might conceivably be argued that they applied to agrarian matters as well as to others. He hoped the Attorney-General would reconsider those words before the Bill finally loft the House.
  Question put
  The House divided:—Ayos, 4; Noes, 289. (Division List No. 364.)

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Smyth, Thomas V. (Leitrim.S

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Snowden, P.

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  Morse, L. L.

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Murnaghan, George

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Hodge, John

  Murphy, John

  Stanley, Hn.A. Lyulph (Chesh.

  Hogan, Michael

  Myer, Horatio

  Steadman. W. C.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Hope, W. Batoiaan (SomersetN

  Newnes. F. (Notts Bassetlaw)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Hornimau, Emslie John

  Nicholls, George

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Nicholson,CharlosN.(Done'ster

  Sullivan, Donal

  Hudson, Walter

  Nolan, Joseph

  Summerbell, T.

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Norman, Henry

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Thomas,Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Illingworth, Ferey H.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Thomas,David Alfred (M'rth'r

  Jackson, R. S.

  O'Brien.Kendal (Tip'ra'y Mid.

  Thompson.J.W.H. (S'm'rs't, E

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Thorne, William

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Connor, James (Wieklow,W.

  Tomkinson, James

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Jones,Sir D.Bryumor (Swansea

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Toulmin, George

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Grady, J.

  Turnour, Viscount

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Ure, Alexander

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Kelly, James (RoscommonN

  Verney. F. W.

  Kekewich, Sir George

  O'Mally, William

  Vivian, Henry

  Kelley, George D.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Wads worth, J.

  Kennedy. Vincent Paul

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  King, Alfed John (Knutsford)

  Partington, Oswald

  Walters, John Tudor

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Phillips, J.Wynford (Pembroke

  Walton Sir John L. (Leeds, S.)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Lamont, Norman

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Wardle, George J.

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Pollard, Dr.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Leese,Sir Joseph F. (Accr'ngt'n

  Radford, G. H.

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan

  Lehmann. R. C.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Wason,John C'athcart (Orkney

  Lever,A.Levy (Essex.Harwich

  Randies, Sir John Scurrah

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Lever, W.H. (Cheshire, Wirral)

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Levy, Maurice

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Weir, James, Galloway

  Lough, Thomas

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Lundon, W.

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Rees, J. D.

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Richards Thomas (W.Monm'th

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Macdonald,J.M.(FalkirkB'ghs

  Richards, T.F. (Wolverh'mpt'n

  White, Rowland

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Richardson, A.

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal,E.)

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Wiles, Thomas

  M'Crae, George

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Williams. J. (Glamorgan)

  M'Kean, John

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Williams,Llewelyn (Carm'th'n

  M'Killop, W.

  Robertson.Rt.Hn.E. (Dundee)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  Maddison, Frederick

  Robertson.Sir G. Scott (Br'df'd

  Wilson, <ob/>. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Wilson. J.W (Worcestersh N)

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Robinson, S.

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Mansfield,H.Rendall (Lincoln)

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Massie, J.

  Rowlands. J.

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Meagher, Michael

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland)

  Young, Samuel

  Median, Patrick A.

  Sehwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Yoxall, James Henry

  Menzies, Walter

  Schwann,Sir C.E. (Manchester

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Shackleton, David James

  Mond, A.

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Sloan, Thomas Henry

  MR. FLYNNrose to a point of order, He wished to ask the Deputy-Speaker whether the following procedure was in order. A clause had been moved on the Report stage of this Bill, and the hon. Members who moved and seconded it had voted against it. Was that in accordance with the rules of the House?
  *MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. EMMOTT)said he was not present during the whole of the debate, but he understood that the noble Lord asked leave to withdraw his Amendment, and that permission was refused. Under circumstances the noble Lord's action in order.
  SIR F. BANBURY, in moving to omit Clause 1, said it was an objectionable clause in the form in which it was introduced, but with the alteration which had been made in it at the instance of the Attorney-General, he thought it was a great deal worse. As the clause stood at the present moment, it dealt not only with a dispute between a trade union and employers, but with every body who might be concerned in a dispute. The only argument he had heard in its favour was the change which was supposed to have been made inthe law by the Taff Vale decision, and in one or two other cases, and it had been argued that unless this clause was put in, trade unions would be in a different position as compared with their state before those decisions were pronounced. he had already said that the clause went further than was either desirable or necessary to put trade unions in the position that they occupied before the Taff Vale decision; and oven if it was correct, which he disputed, that that decision made a new law, or altered the law as it Existed, this clause, in addition to affecting members of trade unions and employers, dealt with other people. It had been said that it was a great disadvantage that the Bill treated only two classes of people, viz., the members of trade unions and the employers; but, on the other hand, it had also been argued that because one evil existed in regard to trade unions it was not necessary to make another evil in regard to employers. If it was desired to remedy one evil in regard to trade unions it should have been specified and dealt with. It had been said over and over again that this Bill was necessary because of the decision in the Taff Vale case, but that assertion was not correct, as indeed the Majority Report of the Royal Commission stated. He would not go into the question of what a trade dispute meant, but let them take it that there was a dispute about wages in a colliery, and a trade union influenced workers in other collieries to break their contracts. The result might be that one or two mines would be flooded and damage to the extent of many thousands of pounds done, and yet there would be no remedy against anybody. That seemed to him to be an absurd position to place people in. If it were said that trade unions were not likely to do such a thing he would
  1410
  recall to the memory of the House the very bad case of "Quinn v. Leatham." It would no doubt be urged that, after all, this Clause was merely to put combinations of two or more men into the position of one person. Upon that question there were some very interesting statements in the Report of the Royal Commission. Lord Macnaghten said—
  "A man may resist without much difficulty a wrongful suit by one individual, but it is a a very different tiling when one man has to defend himself against men combined to do him wrong"
  Nothing could express more clearly in a few words the effect of this clause. It would enable a combination to attack an individual and do him wrong, the combination being so large that it would be absolutely impossible for the man to resist it, and they were to be free from any responsibility for their wrong doing. The hon. Member for Clitheroe remarked that he wished to make responsible the men who broke the law. If that were so, he asked the hon. Member to vote with him against this clause. He denied that by so doing the hon. Member would in any way destroy the principle which he desired to enforce. It might be urged that if any criminal offence was committed under this clause those who were guilty of it were liable, but there were many offences which although not criminal might inflict great injury. It was not a criminal offence that was committed in the case of "Quinn v. Leatham" but that action inflicted great damage not only on the employer but the employed. He pointed out to the hon. Member for Clitheroe, with regard to a man's being responsible for his wrong doing, that if this clause was omitted Clause 4 would still remain, and therefore he apprehended that the hon. Member would agree that this clause should be omitted. Another point to which he desired to draw attention was that this clause, as proposed to be amended, would oven allow boycotting. It would allow anybody to do what they liked so long as they did not commit a criminal offence. He could not believe that that was the intention of the Government, and therefore he trusted hon. Members opposite would for once take courage and agree with him that this clause was not necessary for the object they had in view; that it was

  1411
  wrong and therefore ought to be omitted. There were of course Amendments on the Paper which if accepted, would make further alteration in the clause, but in his opinion those Amendments would not improve it so far in the right direction as the omission of the clause. Its omission would go far in the direction of removing, though it would not entirely satisfy those who thought this Bill was wrong, the fear in their minds that not only trade unions were to he exempted from the law, but that anyone who chose to combine with another and carry that combination into trade disputes would also be exempt. he hoped the hon. and learned Solicitor-General would assure him that he had made a mistake in regard to this, though he did not see how that could be possible, but it would give him great pleasure to be assured upon that point. If they were going to try and maintain law and order in the complex state of society in which we lived, it was necessary, if two or more were going to combine together for the purpose of injuring a third party, that that third party should have a legal remedy. If the clause was only to apply to trade unions it was doubly necessary to be careful what they did. He appealed to the House; he appealed to the nation at large, not to allow this clause to be incorporated in the Bill. he did not believe it could be seriously argued that largo and powerful bodies like trade unions should be allowed to use the funds at their disposal in the way in which they would be able to do if the clause became law. They could do it now indirectly. They need not say ostentatiously or publicly that such a thing should be done, but they could give hints to other people and combine together and do a great amount of injury to others, and they
  would be assisted in doing that injury by the largo funds subscribed, as he thought, for an entirely different purpose by people who lived in all parts of the United Kingdom, and who therefore could not control their action. This clause would allow thorn to take away a man's business, and in that way destroy his means of livelihood. All that could be done if no remedy was provided under the law. He could not believe that such a great change was ever seriously contemplated, and if the Government yielded to pressure, in their more sober moments they would regret it. he hoped at any rate with regard to the first clause they would not insist that it should stand part of the Bill. He begged to move.
  CAPTAIN CRAIGformally seconded the Amendment.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, to leave out Clause 1."—(Sir Frederick Banbury.)
  Question proposed, "That the clause proposed to be left out, stand part of the Bill."
  SIR. W. ROBSONreminded the hon. Baronet that the clause was one which was agreed to by nearly all his political friends, and was recommended by the Commission appointed by the Government of which the hon. Baronet was a strenuous supporter. The clause did no more than recommend a return to the state of the law before the Taff Vale decision.
  Question put.
  The House divided:— Ayes, 283; Noes, 35. (Division List No. 365)

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Hudson, Walter

  Partington, Oswald

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Hutton, Alfred Eddison

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester

  Clough, W.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Phillipps, J. Wynford (Pem'ke

  Clynes, J. R.

  Jackson. R. S.

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Coats.Sir T.Glen (Renfrow, W.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Jardine, Sir J.

  Pollard, Dr.

  Collins.Sir Wm.J.(S.Pancras,W

  Jenkins, J.

  Price, C. E.(Edinburgh, Cential

  Corbett,C.H. (Sussex,E.Gr'st'd

  Jones.Sir D.Brynmor (Swansea

  Radford, G. H.

  Cornwall, Sir Edwin A.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Cox, Harold

  Jowett, F. W.

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Cremar, William Randal

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarbord'

  Crooks, William

  Kelley, George D.

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Crossley, William J.

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Rees, J. D.

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Laidlaw, Robert

  Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rocehster)

  Richards.T. F. (Wolvorh'mpt'n

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Lamont, Norman

  Richardson, A.

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.)

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Delany, William

  Leese,Sir Joseph F.(Accrington

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Dickinson, W.H.(S. Paneras.N.

  Lsver.A.Levy (Essex.Harwich)

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Lever, W. H (Cneshire, Wirral

  Robertson, Rt. Hn. E. (Dundee

  Dodd, W. H.

  Levy, Maurice

  Robertson,Sir G.Scott (Br'df'd

  Donelan, Captain A.

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Robertson, J. M. (Tyneside)

  Duckworth, James

  Lough, Thomas

  Robinson, S.

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Lundon, W.

  Rcbson, Sir William Snowdon

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Lupton, Arnold

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Rowlands, J.

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Macdonald,J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  Maepherson. J. T.

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Elibank, Master of

  Mac Veagh, Jeremiah (Dowa,S.

  Scbwann, Sir C.E. (Manch'ster

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  MacVeigh. Charles (Donegal,E.

  Scott, A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Erskine, David C.

  M'Callum, John M.

  Shackleton, David James

  Evans, Samuel T.

  M'Crae, George

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  M'Killop, W.

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Maddison, Frederick

  Snowden, P.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Manfield, Harry (Northants)

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Ferens, T. R.

  Mansfield, H.Rendall (Lincoln)

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Massie, J.

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Meagher, Michael

  Stanley,Hn.A.Lylulph (Chesh.)

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Menzies, Walter

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Gill, A. H.

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Ginnell, L.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Glover, Thomas

  Mond, A.

  Sullivan, Donal

  Gooch, George Peabody

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Summerbell, T.

  Grant, Corrie

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Greenwood, G. (Peterborough)

  Mooney, J. J.

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Hall, Frederick

  Morgan, J. Lloyd (Carmarthen

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Morse, L. L.

  Thomas.Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Hardie, J.Keir (Merthyr Tydvil

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Thomas, David Alfred (M'rth'r

  Hardy, George A. (Suffolk)

  Murnaghan, George

  Thomasson, Franklin

  Harrington, Timothy

  Murphy, John

  Thompson,J.W.H. (Somerset.E

  Hart-Davies, T

  Myer, Horatio

  Thorne, William

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Tomkinson, James

  Harwood, George

  Nicholls, George

  Torrance, Sir A. M.

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Nicholson, Charles N. (Donc'r

  Touhnin, George

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Nolan, Joseph

  Ure, Alexander

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Norman, Henry

  Verney, F. W.

  Hagel, Dr. A. E.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Vivian, Henry

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Wadsworth, J.

  Hemmerde, Edward George

  Nuttall, Harry

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  O'Brien.Kendal (Tip'r'ry Mid.

  Walters, John Tudor

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe)

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Higham, John Sharp

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Wardle, George J.

  Hodge, John

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Hogan, Michael

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, H.)

  Wason, Eugene (Clachmannan

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  O'Kelly, James (Roscom'n, N.

  Wasop.John Cathcart (Orkney

  Hope,W.Bateroan (S'merset,N.

  O'Malley, William

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Horniman, Emslie John

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Watt, H. Anderson

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  1414

  1415

  Weir, James Galloway

  Wiles, Thomas

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Young, Samuel

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire

  Williams,Llewelyn(Carmarth'n

  Yoxall, James Henry

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Wills, Arthur Walters

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES—Mr. Whitley and Mr. J.A. Pease.

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Wilson,J.W. (Worcestersh. N)

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Wilson, P. W. (St. Pancras, S.)

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  NOES

  Acland-Hood,RtHn.Sir Alex.F

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim.S.

  Nield, Herbert

  Balfour.Rt.Hn.A.J. (City Lond

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Baring. Hon. Guy (Winchester

  Douglas, Rt. Hn. A. Akers-

  Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel

  Beach.Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

  Fell, Arthur

  Smith,F.E. (Liverpool, Walton

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Stone, Sir Benjamin

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Forster, Henry William

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Thornton, Percy W.

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Valentia, Viscount

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  King, Sir Henry Seymour (Hull

  TELLERS TOR THE NOES—Sir Frederick Banbury and Captain Criag.

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

  Law, Andrew Bonar (Dulwich)

  Corbett, T. L. (Down, North)

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 12, to leave out the words. 'as a tort.'—(Sir John Walton.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  MR. F. E. SMITH MR. F. E. SMITH moved to leave out of Clause 2 the words "one or more" and insert "a reasonable number." He said that when the Bill was in Committee Amendments were proposed which would have had the effect of introducing a numerical limitation in regard to the persons who would be entitled either on their own behalf or on I behalf of a trade union to attend in a peaceable manner for purposes of persuasion. One proposal, put forward by the hon. Member for Norwood, was that the number should be limited to three, but it was resisted by the Attorney-General, as was also a proposal to limit the number of men according to the circumstances of the place. The Attorney-General resisted the proposal of his hon. friend for Norwood upon one ground only, namely, that the Government, instead of employing a figure, were going to find an expression which would restrict this right, and they put in "peaceably and in a reasonable manner." He had cited some cases of strikes in which gross violence had been used by men who were doing
  1416
  the work of the trade unions, and he had further pointed out that the clause for which the Government had made themselves responsible permitted the picket not only to wait outside the exits and entrances of a place of business, but also to allow any number of men to attend for peaceful persuasion. At that point the Attorney-General had interrupted him by remarking that any number of men would not be reasonable within the meaning of this clause. On another occasion the Attorney-General, in reply to an Amendment to limit the number of men who might picket, said he did not assume that such extraordinary things as those which were put forward could possibly occur, and that he had no objection to say that the rights should be exercised in a reasonable manner and by a reasonable number. That statement, which was deliberately made, disarmed Amendments on the Opposition side and resulted in the saving of much time which would otherwise have been occupied in discussing the I matter. Now the Attorney-General proposed to strike out the words "peaceably and in reasonable manner" after several assurances that the Government would preserve them. It was reasonable, according to the Attorney-General's own statement, to introduce some numerical limitation on the number of persons who should be at liberty to carry on this peaceful picketing unless the words which the

  1417
  Government pledged themselves to maintain were kept in the Bill. On that point he would remind the hon. and learned Gentleman that there had recently been instances very comparable in their nature to those which he had cited on the previous occasion to show the desirability of having some numerical limitation. The last strike in Wales had been no exception to previous strikes in the abuses which had been directly occasioned by the very right sanctioned by the right hon. and learned Gentleman. They were told by hon. Gentlemen below the gangway that it did not matter whether they had a numerical qualification or not, because the members and officials of the trade union had something else to do with their time than go in large numbers to the houses of people for purposes of persuasion. But that opinion did not receive the slightest support from an examination of the history of recent industrial disputes. It was not what responsible leaders did but what members of trade unions who were not responsible did. He instanced the recent strike in Wales. The question was asked the other day as to whether one man had not been treated with great violence, terminating in his being thrown into the river. The hon. Member for Merthyr Tydvil asked in a supplementary question whether it was not merely a practical joke. Whether that particular case could be substantiated or not, and whether, or, if it could be substantiated, it would be treated by the House of Commons as humour, there were many cases which could be substantiated which had never been contradicted by trade unionists in the Welsh dispute, although they had contradicted every case they could. His point was that the moment they allowed an indefinite number of men to go to the place where a man happened to be they called into existence a state of things from which outrage was sine to come. The hon. Member for Clitheroe had said to-night amid loud cheers from the Ministerial side, "Let the man who has done the wrong be made liable." He would ask them to address that counsel to the man who was frogmarched a quarter of a mile in his shirt by women and men in the recent strike, and who, if he could have discovered his assailant, might have been in a position to avail himself of the remedies. Was it to be
  1418
  denied that at the strike in the Rhondda Valley and other strikes a number of men had been deprived of the opportunity of forming a deliberate judgment and exercising a free choice of the circumstances under which they would sell their labour, because other men having no proportion to their number were allowed to "communicate information?" Let the House have done with the hypocricy of intending that there was a legal remedy for these nets of violence. The Amendment which he was moving was one which the Attorney-General if he had been consulted when the Bill was under discussion in Committee would have entirely concurred in. He would quote one more passage from a speech of the hon. and learned Gentleman in which the words were as clear and explicit as words could be, though he had led the House not to expect anything like permanency in his utterances. The hon. and learned Gentleman said he had no objection to say that the rights should be exercised in a reasonable manner. They had had one instance in which the Attorney-General after giving a definite expression of his views had changed his views. He admired both the dialectical skill and the eloquence with which the hon. and learned Gentleman explained his action in an exceedingly difficult case, and he would like to know his reason for changing his mind in regard to the subject now before the House.
  MR. CLAVELL SALTERseconded the Amendment. It would be in the memory of all who heard the representation made by the Attorney-General at the time, that certain Amendments which were proposed might fairly be abandoned, as indeed they were, because it was, and would be, an essential provision of this Bill that picketing, offensive and injurious as many of them thought it, should at any rate be restricted and that the Bill would expressly provide that what was done would be done peaceably and in a reasonable manner. The Attorney-General ought not to be a party to the striking out of the words lower down, "peaceably and in a reasonable manner," for if they were left out the picketing need not be peaceful, and there would be no protection given to the person who was going to suffer by picketing.
  MR. DEPUTY-SPEAKER: The hon. Member cannot discuss at this stage an Amendment which the Attorney-General is going to move later on.
  MR. CLAVELL SALTER: In that case I prefer to reserve what I have to say until the Amendment is proposed.
  Amendment proposed—
  "In page 1, line 13, to leave out the words 'one or more' and to insert the words 'a reasonable number of.' "—(Mr. F. E. Smith.)
  Question proposed, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Bill."
  *MR. R. DUNCANsaid he believed that organised labour, well directed, was a powerful lever for raising the condition of the people engaged in industrial pursuits, but there were many dangers in the abuse of such a system. It was really necessary to consider whether the trades which were doing most to compel the passing of this Bill would not really damage their cause by refusing to accept such an Amendment as was here proposed. He thought hon. Members should really consider whether they could not do something to prevent the disgraceful conflicts between labour and capital which had been ruining the country. He and his friends recognised that organised labour must have its officials and offices and representatives all over the country in order to be effective, but if it was to be a tyranny to compel a man to join a union when he did not wish to join, then it would be a backward step which would make the country less prosperous and life not worth living. An Englishman took pride in regarding his home as his castle, but if a hundred men were to be allowed to surround him and his wife and children while a trade dispute was going on could that be called peaceful persuasion? He had been a picket himself, and his method was to go with a fellow employer and put arguments before his comrade in order to show him why he should stand shoulder to shoulder with them. They did not bring fifty or a hundred men to that man's house to tyrannise over him. Was there no danger whatever that great
  1420
  organisations might be used tyrannically? Every man who would answer that question honestly would say that there was such a danger. If men did not exercise their good sense there would be such a tyranny as would make the country not worth living in
  *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he could not complain of the criticisms of the hon. and learned Gentleman opposite. He quite agreed with the last speaker that in any clause legalising picketing they must, of course, adequately protect public order and individual liberty. And if the terms which he had introduced into this clause did not satisfactorily accomplish that object, then he admitted that he had failed in his object. He quite agreed that the clause as he proposed to amend it underwent a material change. The qualifications or conditions which were attached to the exercise of a right connected themselves with the method adopted of exercising that right. As the clause stood, it provided that the attendance on persons whom it was sought to persuade should be conducted "in a reasonable manner." When the matter was before the Committee it was quite true that suggestions were made in regard to the number of persons employed in picketing, and the hours chosen for that purpose. He thought the House would agree with him that if they attached conditions to the exercise of the right which they created, those conditions should be readily cognisable beforehand, and that there should be a certain uniform standard or measure by which the character and conduct of those engaged in picketing was to be judged. If the clause as it stood remained, he asked the House to consider for one moment the difficulties in which the trade unions would he placed. They might consider, supposing the clause contained the expression "in a reasonable manner," that the method of attendance was "reasonable," and that the manner they chose to adopt was a "reasonable manner," but the tribunal which was called upon afterwards to decide whether it was "reasonable" or not, might come to a diametrically opposite conclusion. They might have decisions as to what was "reasonable" as various as the tribunals invoked; and they were also face to face with the great

  1421
  danger that some juries might be so prejudiced against picketing operations by trade unions that any conduct of this kind for which they were responsible would meet with condemnation. There was some support for that view. Therefore, to frame a definition of a "reasonable manner" was, he doubted, a task to which the wit of man was not equal. The only other way to meet the difficulty was for him, if possible, to attach some test to the operation of picketing which would indirectly ensure that proper restrictive conditions should be observed. He believed that he had adopted a test which would entirely accomplish that result, and if it did not, then his efforts had been in vain. He had introduced later on in the clause the expression "peacefully," before the words "obtaining, or communicating information," and before the word "persuading." The result was that no picketing under the section would be lawful unless exercised for the sole purpose of "peaceful persuasion." The expression "peaceful persuasion" had been sneered at by an hon. Member; but surely there was no difficulty in understanding what was meant by that phrase. If men who had struck wished to induce others to join them they were entitled to wait upon them, and appeal to their reason, or, it might be their feeling of comradeship, and ask them to join their forces. If they did that "peacefully," and if their object was solely that of "peaceful persuasion," what could be morally wrong in it? If the test which he suggested were applied the result would be that where such a number of men were employed, at such an hour, and in such a way that their object might be inferred to be peaceful persuasion, they would be held to be within their rights, and there could be no reason for condemning the proceeding. But if not one or two men, but a dozen or more went on this mission of persuasion, the inference which the Court would draw would be that the object was not mere "peaceful persuasion," but intimidation or coercion or an appeal to fear. Supposing that the picket visited the house of a person at three o'clock in the morning, the magistrate might say that they could not peacefully persuade a man who was in bed; that what they wanted to do was to influence him by putting pressure on his freedom of will. The same observa-
  1422
  tion might be made in regard to places selected. He thought that the insertion of the words "peaceful persuasion" as the test of the bona fides of the operation would accomplish all the results to be obtained by a series of restrictive enactments. It would get rid of difficulties of construction, and the uncertainties of application which must arise from the use of a vague expression such as "in a reasonable manner." It would, he thought, ensure that individual liberty was not seriously infringed, and that public order was defended.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid that while the hon. and learned Attorney-General was speaking he could not help thinking that they ought to congratulate themselves on the fact that they had not got a stage further than the Report stage in which Amendments could be made, for he had not the least doubt, after what had taken place in connection with this Bill since it was introduced, that if the same crop of concessions had gone on, by the time they reached the next stage not only would the word "peacefully" have disappeared, but they would have been asked probably to insert the words "with turmoil and with violence." The hon. and learned Attorney-General had stated truly —and he admired him for his candour-— that all his answers in Committee, and on the First and Second Reading, were founded on the words originally in the Bill, "peaceably and in a reasonable manner." When they asked for the numbers who might attend, or the hours in which it might be done, the answer was: "What do you want that for? It must be in 'a reasonable manner.'" Now, the hon. and learned Attorney-General declared that notwithstanding the previous consideration he had given the Bill when it was drafted and submitted, and when he was in charge of the First and Second Readings, and of the Committee stage, it had never occurred to him that the most unintelligible words that could be put into an Act of Parliament were the words "in a reasonable manner." The hon. and learned Attorney-General knew perfectly well that he had spent hours and days in the Courts in attempting to get them to define what was "reasonable." Had the hon. and learned Gentleman ever found any difficulty in getting the words "with

  1423
  reasonable care," or "for reasonable and probable cause" justly construed? While no one admired more than he did the candour of the hon. and learned Gentleman, he thought that, instead of trying to fritter away what he well knew were easily administered difficulties in relation to this term, it would have been much more honest to get up and say, "We are making one more, only one more little concession to the Labour Party." The hon. and learned Gentleman knew perfectly well that that was what had happened. They saw by the ordinary organs of communication which some of them read, and which some of them did not read, that a demand had been made by the Labour Party; they knew perfectly well that these words "in a reasonable manner" had been objected to, but instead of coming down and pretending that the English law knew no such method of solving the difficulty of what was "reasonable," why did not the hon. Gentleman get up and say, "Just as I had to give way on a previous occasion with reference to the opinions I so strongly felt and continue to feel, so here now I am prepared to throw over my principles." The Attorney-General practically said that this was a comparatively small matter and he was prepared to throw over the principles which from his youth up he had imbibed in the administration of the English law. But the matter did not rest there. The Attorney-General was not satisfied with that and so he must go on and attack the tribunals before which he had practised and under which he must have seen that justice had been done in the most difficult cases. He, the Attorney-General of this country, who ought to be the upholder of the administration of the law, had not hesitated on that occasion to bring forward as an argument that they could not trust the tribunals before which he had practised.
  SIR JOHN WALTON: I used no such argument; I said nothing in the remotest degree like that.
  SIR E. CARSON: The hon. and learned Gentleman said the tribunal might be disposed to be against the parties who brought the matter before them. If his Majesty's Attorney-General thought that the tribunals of the country could not
  1424
  be trusted it was his duty to alter their constitution and not to alter the laws.
  SIR JOHN WALTONsaid that he had never stated anything of the sort and did not think it. The right hon. Gentleman had given a travesty of what he had said. He said that, if twelve men were asked to come to a conclusion that a certain proceeding was reasonable, it would be difficult to expect them to arrive-at the same conclusion as twelve other men. He also said that in certain cases they would find twelve men who would say that no method of picketing would be reasonable.
  SIR E. CARSON, who was received with cries of "Withdraw," said the moment the hon. and learned Gentleman said he had taken his words wrongly he of course withdrew. He was glad to know that the hon. and learned Gentleman intended no reflection upon the Courts, but if there was no reflection on the Courts, what was the difficulty in construing the word "reasonable"? The truth of the matter was that the Attorney-General had changed his mind. Upon the previous occasion everthing according to the Attorney-General turned upon the words, "in a reasonable manner." He had all these statements-before him, and if it was necessary he could quote page after page in which the Attorney-General had said that they might reply upon those words. If they had not now to rely upon those words, "in a reasonable manner" what had they to rely upon? They had asked to have put in that there should be some provision as to reasonable numbers, and he would ask whether that was not a fair and a reasonable Amendment. It should never be forgotten that this was the first clause in any Act of Parliament which said that picketing was legal. [Cries of "No."] He defied anybody to point out to him any clause in the old Acts of Parliament which made it legal, although it was true that under the Act of 1875 it was stated that it should not be an offence within a certain clause of that Act. But that Act and the preceding Act had never legalised picketing. He did not think that they ought to extend the law beyond what was reasonably necessary to accomplish the object which they had in view. The hon. and learned

  1425
  Member had said that everything they desired would be effected by putting in that the purpose in a man's mind must be of a peaceful character. But how could they get at what was in a man's mind? The very matter they were trying to provide against showed the adsurdity of any such attempt. What they said was that the moment 100 men were brought down to another man's house, although they might be just as peaceful as he and the Attorney-General were at that moment, yet their presence might be an act of the greatest intimidation towa ds the man and his wife and family. Did the Attorney-General mean to tell them that that point would be met by saying that the men had gone there peacefully and with no intention of creating any disturbance? Did he mean to tell them that a magistrate had to find that although they might have gone there with a peaceful purpose their very numbers might not amount to intimidation? That was the whole distinction, and what they asked was that in legalising picketing, at all events some rules should be laid down as to the extent and manner in which it could be carried on. But there was a more important matter still having regard to what was to be left out of the Bill. They were mot at once with the question of nuisance not only towards the individual but towards the public. If they legalised a certain act what was the use of coming to the Courts and saying "this is a nuisance." The Courts would say "But it is legalised by an Act of Parliament and we cannot help that." So far as he was concerned he regretted the ignominous surrender which the Government had made on this clause more than that which they had made on Clause 4, because that was a mere matter of money, and he was not sure that so far as the capitalist was concerned it would make much difference one way or the other. But here it was a different matter. They were dealing with a question which would affect not only a class, but the public at large, and he thought that it was most unfortunate that the Government had not shown themselves able to resist the "peaceful persuasion" which had been addressed to them, and that unfortunately they had not been able to resist the intimidation which had resulted in an utter change of front.
  THE SOLICITOR-GENERAL (Sir W. BOBSON, South Shields)said the right hon. Gentleman had made many fallacious statements and had entirely ignored the statements of his hon. and learned friend as to the meaning of the clause as it now stood. His hon. and learned friend had pointed out that all the safeguards which were attached to the word "reasonable," were amply carried out by the definition given of the nature of the act to be dealt with in the clause. It was very much better, both for draftsmanship and for purposes of substance, instead of attempting to define numbers, to define the purposes for which, and for which alone, the act in question was to be allowed. The right hon. Gentleman alleged some inconsistencies between what his hon. and learned friend had said and done in Committee and on Report, If that was made a ground of criticism, the sooner they got rid of the Report stage the better, because the very object of the Report stage was not to do the same thing but to benefit by the arguments addressed in Committee. It was said that a revolutionary change had been made, but if such was the case, then his hon. and learned friend had good precedent for it. In 1859 there appeared for the first time a section permitting peaceful picketing. That Statute was repealed by the Statute of 1871, and, unfortunately, in the Statute of 1871 the section of the Act of 1859 was not re-enacted. But in the Act of 1875 the Tory Government had before them the Act of 1859, and it was then decided that there should be a re-enactment of the provision relating to peaceful picketing. But the framers of that Act dropped out the words "peacefully and in a reasonable manner," so that his hon. and learned friend was doing nothing more to-day than he had excellent Tory precedent for. The words were dropped out because they were thought to be unnecessary. No terrible consequences followed, and the words were even more unnecessary to-day than they were in 1875.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the argument of the Solicitor-General had certainly been a remarkable one. The hon. and learned Gentleman had said if persons were not to be allowed to change their opinions in the interval between the Committee and Report stage why have a

  1427
  Report stage? He quite admitted that if changes of opinion between the two stages of a Bill was to be practised on the scale that the House had witnessed on this occasion he would quite understand, and was inclined to adopt, the suggestion that these subjects should only come before the House on one of these two traditional occasions on which they had to be considered. But where would the Labour Party have been if, in respect of this measure, there had been no locus pœnitentiae of a Report stage, wherein reasonable persuasion might be exercised. The House would have been reading the Bill a third time with all its awful imperfections embodied in it, and would have lost the opportunity given by the present rules of hearing three Ministers get up and say they were entirely opposed, as they always had been, to the measure which they were supporting, but nevertheless they had great pleasure in yielding to the wishes of hon. Members below the Gangway. The Solicitor-General had reproached his hon. friend with not having met the arguments of the Attorney-General. What were the arguments? They were that he had put into the clause the word "peaceable" and that that word governed everything and prevented things that might otherwise occur—that if a man went at three in the morning to a man to try to obtain information or to persuade that person to work or to abstain from working, the hour was so inconvenient that the magistrates and the Courts would at once say it was not peaceable. Was that the way in which the Court interpreted the English language?
  *SIR JOHN WALTON: The inference would be from the time selected that the man had some ulterior motive in selecting it.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that might be, but why should it not be peaceable? The only protection given to the person picketed was that the picketing should be peaceable.
  *SIR JOHN WALTON: Not at all.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the additions and changes to this Bill had been so
  1428
  numerous that he might have overlooked a few of them.
  *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid at all events there had been no addition to this particular Amendment before the House. The test of legality in the exercise of this right was that it should be for the mere purpose of peaceful persuasion and not for any ulterior or collateral object. The clause with this Amendment was as effectual in the protection of individual liberty as before.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid the impression made on his mind was that the hon. and learned Gentleman distinctly told the House that if there were an attempt to persuade a man at three in the morning, the magistrates would hold that that could not be described as peaceful persuasion.
  *SIR JOHN WALTONsaid he was anxious to fulfil his undertaking to satisfy the House that the clause with this Amendment in it was effectual. The Amendment was this, if a picket by its numbers, or the hour at which it picketed or the use of language, led to the inference that it had only the object of using peaceful persuasion of the man picketed, it should be legal.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid that if anyone were privately drafting a clause to prevent anything but peaceful persuasion would he draft it as the Attorney-General had done? Would he not say that the numbers must be limited and the hours reasonable? Supposing all the members of the Opposition were to follow the Attorney-General home, and, in the most courteous manner, inform him of all the arguments against this Amendment. No one would say that that was not peaceful persuasion.
  *SIR JOHN WALTON: I should say that it was not for the purpose of peaceful persuasion.
  MR. A. J. BALFOURsaid it would be a great nuisance, but that was not forbidden by this clause. It would be unreasonable, and the numbers would be

  1429
  excessive, but that did not make it unpeaceful. If it were peaceful and persuasive it would be lawful, whether it was a nuisance or not, He had thus met the argument of the Attorney-General If the Government were sincere in desiring that only persuasion should be allowed, and only under the circumstances under which mere persuasion was reasonable and proper, they ought to accept Amendments limiting the numbers. But on the other hand, if they wished to leave a loophole for that which called itself peaceful but was not peaceful, for that which called itself reasonable but was not reasonable, and for that which failed itself persuasion but was intimidation in disguise, then let them refuse this Amendment.
  MR. ATHERLEY-JONESsaid he did not think this controversy had been very conclusive. The alarm of hon. Gentlemen opposite was very ill-founded. There was not the slightest reason to anticipate that intimidation, molestation, or nuisance would be permitted if this section of the clause were passed in the form in which it stood. Let him point out that all the section did was to emphasise what the law was at present. The late Prime Minister had forcibly put what the position would be in the imaginary cases he suggested. He had said that this section authorised any number to picket, and he was perfectly correct. From that he at once drew the deduction that because a statute authorised an unlimited number of persons to attend that it would not be in the power of the constable to move those people on. He begged to assure the right hon. Gentleman that that would not be the case, because the section they were now debating was nothing more than a reiteration of the law in Lyons v. Wilkins. The late Lord Justice Stirling held that attending for purposes other than for obtaining information, and for peaceful persuasion was unlawful, but the House of Lords had put that matter right since, and the Court of Appeal held before this Bill was prepared that they might attend for the purpose of peaceful persuasion. He might inform the late Prime Minister that when, under this clause, men were sued for nuisance or for congregating in numbers so as to cause intimidation or for any other unlawful purpose they would be just as rigidly
  1430
  dealt with under the Bill as they were at the present time.
  *MR. BELLsaid he desired to say a few words in this debate, more especially after the alarming pictures that had been painted. He had had some experience in Labour movements and he knew something in regard to what led up to this Bill, and why these Amendments had been placed in it. [OPPOSITION cheers.] He quite appreciated those cheers, but at the same time he desired to point out to right hon. and hon. Gentlemen on the Opposition side that when this Bill was passed, as it would be passed, it would make absolutely no difference in any of those instances which had been given by the late Prime Minister and the late Solicitor-General. He only desired to prove this by calling attention to the fact that so recently as two or three weeks ago, a large number of working men who were out on strike went to the house of another working man and they went in such large numbers as to alarm the man and his wife. Apparently, in the opinion of the man himself they endeavoured peacefully to persuade him, and there was no violence and no intimidation. The person concerned was annoyed by the presence of such a large number of men, and he took proceedings against them under the common law, and the men who were summoned were all fined,£10 and costs, or two months imprisonment. He needed hardly say more than that those who represented Labour deprecated anything which was likely to border on the line of intimidation, and they did not desire to remove any of those restrictions. They did not desire to remove the common law from imposing similar penalties if they were deserved upon those who committed such offences in the future. If hon. Members above the Gangway honestly desired that peaceful actions should be the work of those who conducted strikes or who were on strike, he could assure them that the Labour Leaders desired that the penalties should be upon the people who committed the offence, but they should not seek to get at the funds of their union. If a body of men got excited and thought they were personally relieved from any liability or responsibility, and were under the impression that the funds of the union could be attached for offences of their own,

  1431
  then they would not be very careful what they did. He would not have intervened in the debate but for the fact that the Solicitor-General did an injustice to those who had been at the head of the Labour movement when he pictured the alarming crimes that were going to take place if this Bill passed into law. No more crimes would occur in the future than in the past, and the penalties inflicted and the instances reported in yesterday's newspapers ought to be sufficient evidence that the punishment was sufficient, and they did not ask to be relieved of their responsibilty.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid he had the report of the cases referred to by the hon. Member for Derby, and he did not think that in his wildest moments the hon. Member could call it a case of peaceful picketing.
  MR. BELLsaid he quoted those cases to show that they did not desire to be relieved of such penalties under similar circumstances.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid he understood the hon. Member to say that what was done on that occasion was done in a peaceful way. [Cries of "No"] But that was not the point under discussion. The point was a most important one. As the Bill stood without the Government Amendment people could not go to a man's house to the number of 100 or 200, and attend there unless they did it peaceably and in a reasonable manner. This Amendment would alter that, and he would state very shortly the reasons why he looked upon the words "peaceably and in a reasonable manner" as absolutely necessary for the safeguarding of the interests of the public. In this discussion upon an Amendment moved by the right hon. Baronet, the Member for the Forest of Dean, to omit the words "peaceably and in a reasonable manner," the learned Attorney-General—he was reading from Hansard —said—
  "He could not accept the Amendment. It was essential to the success of this Bill that these words should remain in the clause. It was obvious that when they were going to legalise the right of a number of persons to assemble with a view to persuading others, that right should be qualified in some proper
  1432
  manner by placing it under reasonable re trictions. There were two ways in which that might be done. They might specify the various conditions to be observed in order to gauge the character of the gathering, and the proceedings of the people a sembled. They might say, as had been suggested, that words should be inserted in the clause to indicate the hours within which the gathering might take place, they might specify the spot at which persons might assemble, and they might point out that they must not cause intimidation or make use of language and demonstrations which would cause alarm or danger. That would be a cumbrous clause and would cause as great difficulty in construction as the expression which the Government, as an alternative, had put into the Bill.…They would leave it to the discretion of the Courts of law to say what was reasonable. … He could not conceive an expression more appropriate and more likely to do justice—"†
  than the one he was supporting. Those were the words of an eminent lawyer, and he ventured as a very much junior one heartily to concur in every word expressed by the hon. and learned Attorney-General on this point. He would quote one further passage from a subsequent speech on the same Amendment, and he would appeal to the House, having regard to these words, whether it was right and fair to bring up this Amendment on the Report Stage. The Attorney-General said:
  "It was of course impossible to accept the Amendment, because the discussion had been conducted all through on the assumption—and he had met proposals of Amendments for safeguards on that very ground—that there was this provision in the Bill as it stood. If the clause were a declaration giving persons the right of picketing, which they might exercise providing they did so without violating the conditions prescribed, it was impossible that while they were exercising that right they should be doing anything illegal, because the object of the clause was to describe lawful conduct. The question whether it was proposed to picket in such a way as to cause a nuisance or a trespass must enter into the consideration whether or not the conduct was reasonable. If it was lawful conduct it could not be a nuisance or a trespass. He thought that his right hon. friend would recognise that it would not be reasonable to allow that right to be exercised without any kind of restriction. In the view of the hon. Member who had just spoken the word 'peaceably' would be a sufficient restriction, but he did not think that it was any less vague or less difficult of construction than the word 'reasonable.'"‡
  He ventured to agree with that expression of legal opinion. He would not alter it
  † See (4) Debates clxii, 1631, 1632
  ‡ See Debate (4) clxii, 1636.

  1433
  in one word lest by doing so he might tarnish it.
  *SIR JOHN WALTON: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. and learned Member, but really I would ask him to observe that I was dealing there with both expressions in collocation, and particularly with the word "peaceably." What I now propose is to strike out altogether any qualification of the method of attendance, and to impose an altogether new alternative, and, I think, a more effectual test, by indicating the purpose for which the operation took place.
  MR. RAWLINSONsaid he understood the hon. and learned Gentleman to say that he was dealing with the state of facts, namely, whether men attended reasonably and peaceably at a particular place. Did he suggest to the House that that was more difficult to define than what he was suggesting now—that they were to define what was in a man's mind. He read again from the hon. and learned Gentleman's speech:
  "If they were to accept the view that there was to be some sort of restriction, he did not think that they could carry that view practically very much further than if they said that the assembly which was legalised under the clause must be peaceable and reasonable and must be conducted in a reasonable way. They had to face the danger of some harsh and restrictive construction being placed on the clause, and he did not think they appreciably diminished that danger by striking out the word 'reasonable.' All the apprehensions that they had heard in the course of the debate were he thought ill founded, but he thought there would be a perfect feeling of security if it was provided that the powers given by the clause should be used reasonably. None of them contemplated the alternative of an unreasonable exercise of the power, and therefore they ought not to reject the proposal that the exercise should be of a reasonable character. For these reasons it was impossible for him to accept the Amendment.'"†
  And for the same reason it was impossible for him to do otherwise than to vote for his hon. and learned friend's Amendment.
  † See (4) Debates clxii, 1636, 1637.
  *MR. RUFUS ISAACS (Reading)said he had listened to what had fallen from the learned Attorney-General in explanation of this clause, and he confessed it seemed to him then, and seemed to him now, that, if anything, he had acted more in accordance with the views of hon. Members opposite than of those who sat below the Gangway—[An HON. MEMBER, "No."] It appeared to him that what his hon. and learned friend had in his mind was this, that he was desirous of legalising that kind of picketing only which would be for the purpose, and merely for the purpose, of obtaining or communicating information or merely for the purpose of peaceful persuasion, and that he was desirous there should be no other form of picketing legalised. In construing the words as they appeared in the Bill at the end of the Committee Stage, and before the Amendment he was now moving, the words "peaceably and in a reasonable manner" did not appear to carry out his intention successfully, at least so successfully as by inserting the word "peaceably" before obtaining or persuading. Perhaps there was no better method of dealing with a controversy of this kind than by taking an instance. He would take the illustration given by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition. He was sure that hon. Members opposite would think that he was attempting to deal fairly with them when he took the very illustration the right hon. Gentleman propounded in favour of the argument he put to the House. Supposing they had, as he suggested, eighty or ninety Members of the House going to the Attorney-General's house at three o'clock to-morrow morning——
  MR. A. J. BALFOUR: Twelve o'clock at night.
  *MR. RUFUS ISAACSthought that with that correction he was accurately representing the right hon. Gentleman's instance. No one in the House had greater

  1435
  admiration for the Leader of the Opposition's powers of argument than he and he would dearly like to hear the right hon. Gentleman in a Court addressing a jury and showing that the eighty or ninety Members of this House—and he presumed they would be from the Opposition if so many could be found— were following the Attorney-General after the argument which they had had to-night, calling at his house, and ringing at the bell, for what purpose? For the purpose of communicating information to him and peacefully persuading him. He would ask the House to consider for a moment what a dfficulty the right hon. Gentleman would be in if he had to put such a proposition as that to a jury composed of twelve men not skilled in metaphysics or dialectics—twelve men of ordinary sound common sense. He imagined the Leader of the Opposition saying to the twelve members of the jury, "We eighty or ninety men followed the Attorney-General to his house at twelve o'clock at night, but we had no object or purpose in view but that of peacefully persuading or of communicating information to him!" Might he suggest that what would happen would be that the learned Judge, after paying a tribute to the great skill and ability with which the case had been argued, would proceed to ask the jury one or two pointed questions. Why eighty or ninety men? Why twelve o'clock at night? They could not all argue at the same time, not even in the street; and if they were not to argue, how could they peacefully persuade? Would any one think that the jury would find that the Attorney-General had been waited upon at his house by these men for the purposes of "peaceful persuasion." But it was said by the right hon. Gentleman with considerable force that the attendance of
  1436
  eighty or ninety men would be an intolerable nuisance. Outside this House they had to listen to many arguments which were an intolerable nuisance, and when that intolerable nuisance was repeated eighty or ninety times he could quite understand that it would be objectionable in practice. But that did not meet the point put by the hon. and learned Attorney-General, which was that the sole test of peaceful picketing was whether it was attendance "merely" for the purpose of peacefully persuading or of communicating information. If they introduced, for example, the element suggested by one speaker, of obstruction in the street, they were introducing something totally different, and it might be said that that was not attending merely for the purpose of peacefully persuading or of communicating information. The right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University said, and of course he believed it at the time he said it, that there was no difficulty whatever in dealing with such words as "reasonable," "with reasonable care," "with reasonable and probable cause." He appealed to the experience of lawyers, and asked whether there was any word upon which there might be a greater difference of opinion than in the determination of whether an act was done "reasonably" in particular circumstances. It was much the same when a man said that his argument was based on common-sense. What was the standard of a common-sense point of view. For the purpose of defining "reasonably" there was no test of the word except the opinion of the Judge or the jury who had to decide the case. Whatever the department of law might be, whether in a mercantile transaction, or any other transactions in which the Court had to determine such a question it would always be very difficult to say whether

  1437
  the Judge or the jury would find a thing to be reasonable. He was not saying too much when he stated that one Judge might find a certain set of facts reasonable to-day, and another Judge might find the same set of facts unreasonable to-morrow. The necessity of the Amendment was that those who were organising and directing trade disputes might know with greater certainty what would be decided by the Courts. There was not much difficulty in deciding what was "peaceful persuasion." The right hon. and learned Member for Dublin University said— "How are you to ascertain the state of a man's mind?" and he put the question as if the mere putting of it was a complete answer. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was engaged every day in the Courts of Justice in ascertaining the state of mind of men making statements.
  SIR E. CARSONsaid he was sure that the hon. and learned Gentleman did not desire to misrepresent him. What he put forward was that it was much more difficult to ascertain what was the state of a man's mind than to find what was reasonable from the statement of facts.
  *MR. RUFUS ISAACSsaid he meant to criticise the observations in that spirit. In reference to dealing with a question of the state of mind of an individual he would give one instance which he was sure would carry conviction to the House. Daily an answer had to be given to this question in a Court of Justice. A statement had been made which was untrue. Was it made honestly or dishonestly? They had to determine that by ascertaining the state of mind of the man who made it. Nobody had more skill than his right hon. and learned friend in extracting information as to the state of the
  1438
  man's mind so as to enable him to determine that question.
  SIR E. CARSON: Except you.
  *MR. RUFUS ISAACSdisclaimed the compliment, and went on to say it was a common practice in every Court to attempt to find out the state of mind of any man making a statement, and he submitted that the clause as now drafted by the Attorney-General carried out with much greater certainty and precision the intention which the hon. and learned Gentleman had in including the words as they appeared on the Committee stage.
  LORD R. CECILreplying to some shouts of "Divide" with which he was received, said he thought that hon. Members opposite might pay a better compliment to the speech which had just been delivered than to endeavour to secure that it should go without a reply. The hon. and learned Member had said that the clause as amended by the Attorney-General was more favourable to the views of those who sat on the Opposition benches than to those below the gangway. He thought that statement alone was a sufficient refutation of the hon. and learned Member's speech. Everybody knew that the clause had been amended at the suggestion of and under pressure from hon. Members below the gangway. [MINISTERIAL cries of "Oh."] If hon. Members opposite did not know it they must be in a very singular condition of mind after what had been said. He believed that hon. Members below the gangway knew their own business a great deal better than to ask for an Amendment which would not serve their turn. There were two changes which

  1439
  the Attorney-General made. One was to strike out the word "reasonable." That he would not deal with. The other was to substitute for a definition of the manner a definition of the object. That was the whole difference between them, and he said without the least fear of contradiction that it was much safer if they wished to have a clear and precise and definite piece of legislation to define the manner of the act than to define the object. He ventured to make an appeal not to the Government, because this was not a Government Bill, but to the hon. Member for Clitheroe and his friends and to ask them whether they would not be wise to accept this Amendment and to provide that people who went for the purpose of "peaceful persuasion" must go in reasonable numbers. If the hon. Member and his friends would accept the Amendment they would show the sincerity of their intentions.
  MR. SAMUEL EVANSsaid he only intended to make a very short speech because he intended to speak to the Amendment,

  AYES.

  Abraham, William (Cork, N.E.

  Beale, W. P.

  Branch, James

  Abraham, William (Rhondda)

  Beauchamp, E.

  Brigg, John

  Acland, Francis Dyke

  Beaumont, Hon. H. (Eastb'rne

  Bright, J. A.

  Adkins, W. Ryland D.

  Beaumont, Hn. W.C.B.(H'x'm

  Brocklehurst, W. B.

  Ainsworth, John Stirling

  Beck, A. Cecil

  Brodie, H. C.

  Alden, Percy

  Bell, Richard

  Brooke, Stopford

  Allen, A. Acland (Christch.)

  Bellairs, Carlyon

  Brunner, J F. L.(Lancs., Leigh

  Allen, Charles P. (Stroud)

  Benn,SirJ.Williams(Devonp'rt

  Brunner, Rt.Hn.Sir J. T.(Ches.

  Ashton, Thomas Gair

  Benn,W.(T'w'rHamlets,S.Geo.

  Bryce, Rt.Hn. James (Aberd'n

  Asquith, Rt.Hn.Herbert Henry

  Berridge, T. H. D.

  Bryce, J. A. (Inverness Burghs

  Astbury, John Meir

  Bethell, J. H. (Essex, Romford

  Buchanan, Thomas Ryburn

  Atherley-Jones, L.

  Billson, Alfred

  Buckmaster, Stanley O.

  Baker, Sir John (Portsmouth)

  Black, ArthurW. (Bedfordshire

  Burns, Rt. Hon. John

  Baker, Joseph A. (Finsbury, E.

  Bolton, T. D (Derbyshire,N.E.

  Burnyeat, W. J. D.

  Baring, Godfrey (Isle of Wight

  Bottomley, Horatio

  Buxton, Rt. Hn. Sydney C.

  Barker, John

  Boulton, A. C. F. (Ramsey)

  Byles, William Pollard

  Barlow, Percy (Bedford)

  Bowerman, C. W.

  Campbell-Bannerman, Sir H.

  Barnard, E. B.

  Brace, William

  Causton,Rt. Hn. RichardKnight

  Barnes, G. N.

  Bramsdon, T. A.

  Chance, Frederick William

  whereas for the last two hours hon. Members had been speaking not to the Amendment before the House but to the proposed Amendments of the hon. and learned Attorney-General. It was not in his view important to consider what everybody said yesterday or the day before. The question was whether the Amendment claiming that a provision should be made in regard to the number of people engaged in picketing was reasonable or not. What they desired to do was to make peaceful persuasion legal in regard to picketing. It was because he was in favour of legalising picketing in this way that he was not in favour of the Amendment and in his opinion it was because hon. Members were against picketing in every way that they were supporting the Amendment. It was because it would limit the power of the workmen in regard to peaceful picketing that he was against the Amendment.
  Question put.
  The House divided:—Ayes, 347; Noes, 72. (Division List No. 366.)

  Cheetham, John Frederick

  Haslam, Lewis (Monmouth)

  Micklem, Nathaniel

  Cherry, Rt. Hon. R. R.

  Haworth, Arthur A.

  Molteno, Percy Alport

  Churchill, Winston Spencer

  Hazel, Dr. A. E.

  Mond, A.

  Clarke, C. Goddard

  Helme, Norval Watson

  Money, L. G. Chiozza

  Cleland, J. W.

  Hermmerde, Edward George

  Montagu, E. S.

  Clough, W.

  Henderson, Arthur (Durham)

  Montgomery, H. G.

  Clynes, J. R.

  Henry, Charles S.

  Mooney, J. J.

  Coats.Sir T. Glen (Renfrew,W.

  Higham, John Sharp

  Morgan, G. Hay (Cornwall)

  Cobbold, Felix Thornley

  Hobart, Sir Robert

  Morgan., J. Lloyd (Carmarthen)

  Collins.Sir Wm. J.(S.Panc's,W.

  Hobhouse, Charles E. H.

  Morrell, Philip

  Cooper, G. J.

  Hodge, John

  Morse, L. L.

  Corbett, C. H.(Sussex,E.G'ns'd.

  Hogan, Michael

  Morton, Alpheus Cleophas

  Cornwall. Sir Edwin A.

  Holland, Sir William Henry

  Murnaghan, George

  Cotton, Sir H. J. S.

  Hooper, A. G.

  Murphy, John

  Cowan, W. H.

  Hope,W.Bateman(Somerset,N.

  Myer, Horatio

  Cox, Harold

  Horniman, Emslie John

  Nannetti, Joseph P.

  Craig, Herbert J. (Tynemouth)

  Horridge, Thomas Gardner

  Napier, T. B.

  Cremer, William Randal

  Howard, Hon. Geoffrey

  Newnes, F. (Notts, Bassetlaw)

  Crooks, William

  Hudson, Walter

  Nicholls, George

  Crosfield, A. H.

  Hyde, Clarendon

  Nicholson. Charles N. (Donc'r')

  Crossley, William J.

  Idris, T. H. W.

  Norman, Henry

  Dalziel, James Henry

  Illingworth, Percy H.

  Norton, Capt. Cecil William

  Davies, Ellis William (Eifion)

  Isaacs, Rufus Daniel

  Nussey, Thomas Willans

  Davies, Timothy (Fulham)

  Jackson, R. S.

  Nuttall, Harry

  Davies, W. Howell (Bristol, S.

  Jacoby, James Alfred

  O'Brien, Kendal (Tip'rary Mid

  Delany, William

  Jardine, Sir J.

  O'Brien, Patrick (Kilkenny)

  Dewar, Arthur (Edinburgh, S.)

  Jenkins, J.

  O'Connor, James (Wicklow, W.

  Dickinson, W.H.(St.Pancras,N.

  Johnson, W. (Nuneaton)

  O'Connor, John (Kildare, N.)

  Dilke, Rt. Hon. Sir Charles

  Jones, SirD.Brvnmor(Swansea

  O'Donnell, C. J. (Walworth)

  Dobson, Thomas W.

  Jones, Leif (Appleby)

  O'Grady, J.

  Dodd, W. H.

  Jones, William (Carnarvonsh.

  O'Kelly, Conor (Mayo, N.)

  Duckworth, James

  Jowett, F. W.

  O'Malley, William

  Duncan, C. (Barrow-in-Furness

  Kearley, Hudson E.

  O'Shaughnessy, P. J.

  Dunn, A. Edward (Camborne)

  Kekewich, Sir George

  Parker, James (Halifax)

  Dunne,Major E. Martin (Wals']

  Kelley, George D.

  Paul, Herbert

  Edwards, Clement (Denbigh)

  Kennedy, Vincent Paul

  Paulton, James Mellor

  Edwards, Enoch (Hanley)

  Kincaid-Smith, Captain

  Pearce, Robert (Staffs. Leek)

  Edwards, Frank (Radnor)

  King, Alfred John (Knutsford)

  Pearson, Sir W. D. (Colchester

  Elibank, Master of

  Laid law, Robert

  Philipps, J. Wynford(Pemboke

  Ellis, Rt. Hon. John Edward

  Lamb, Edmund G. (Leominster

  Philipps, Owen C. (Pembroke)

  Erskine, David C

  Lamb, Ernest H. (Rochester)

  Pickersgill, Edward Hare

  Evans, Samuel T.

  Lambert, George

  Pirie, Duncan V.

  Eve, Harry Trelawney

  Lamont, Norman

  Pollard, Dr.

  Everett, R. Lacey

  Layland-Barratt, Francis

  Price, C. E. (Edinburgh.Centr'l

  Faber, G. H. (Boston)

  Leese, Sir Joseph F. (Acc'ngton

  Radford, G. H.

  Fenwick, Charles

  Lehmann, R. C.

  Rainy, A. Rolland

  Ferens, T. R.

  Lever,A.Levy (Essex.Harwich

  Raphael, Herbert H.

  Ferguson, R. C. Munro

  Lever, W.H. (Cheshire.Wirral)

  Rea, Russell (Gloucester)

  Fiennes, Hon. Eustace

  Levy, Maurice

  Rea, Walter Russell (Scarboro'

  Flynn, James Christopher

  Lewis, John Herbert

  Redmond, John E. (Waterford

  Fowler, Rt. Hn. Sir Henry

  Lough, Thomas

  Redmond, William (Clare)

  Fuller, John Michael F.

  Lundon, W.

  Rees, J. D.

  Fullerton, Hugh

  Lupton, Arnold

  Renton, Major Leslie

  Gibb, James (Harrow)

  Lynch, H. B.

  Richards,Thomas (W.Monm'th

  Gill, A. H.

  Macdonald, J.M.(Falkirk B'ghs

  Richards, T. F.(Wolverb'mpt'n

  Gladstone.Rt.Hn.Herbert John

  Macnamara, Dr. Thomas J.

  Richardson, A.

  Glover, Thomas

  Macpherson, J. T.

  Rickett, J. Compton

  Gooch, George Peabody

  MacVeagh, Jeremiah (Down, S.

  Roberts, Charles H. (Lincoln)

  Grant, Corrie

  MacVeigh,Charles (Donegal, E

  Roberts, G. H. (Norwich)

  Greenwood, Hamar (York)

  M'Callum, John M.

  Roberts, John H. (Denbighs.)

  Grey, Rt. Hon. Sir Edward

  M'Crae, George

  Robertson,SirG.Scott(Bradf'rd

  Gulland, John W.

  M'Kean, John

  Robinson, S.

  Gurdon, Sir W. Brampton

  M'Killop, W.

  Robson, Sir William Snowdon

  Haldane, Rt. Hon. Richard B.

  M'Micking, Major G.

  Roe, Sir Thomas

  Hall, Frederick

  Maddison, Frederick

  Rogers, F. E. Newman

  Harcourt, Rt. Hon. Lewis

  Mallet, Charles E.

  Rose, Charles Day

  Hardie, J.Keir(Merthyr Tydvil

  Mansfield,H.Rendall (Lincoln)

  Rowlands, J.

  Harmsworth, Cecil B. (Worc'r)

  Marks, G.Croydon(Launceston

  Runciman, Walter

  Harrington, Timothy

  Marnham, F. J.

  Samuel, Herbert L. (Cleveland

  Hart-Davis, T.

  Mason, A. E. W. (Coventry)

  Schwann, C. Duncan (Hyde)

  Harvey, A. G. C. (Rochdale)

  Meagher, Michael

  Schwann, Sir C. E. (Ma ch'ster

  Harwood, George

  Meehan, Patrick A.

  Scott,A.H.(Ashton under Lyne

  Haslam, James (Derbyshire)

  Menzies, Walter

  Sears, J. E.

  1442

  1443

  Seely, Major J. B.

  Thomas, Abel (Carmarthen,E.)

  Wedgwood, Josiah C.

  Shackleton, David James

  Thomas, Sir A. (Glamorgan, E.

  Weir, James Galloway

  Shaw, Charles Edw. (Stafford)

  Thomas,David Alfred (Merthyr

  Whitbread, Howard

  Shaw, Rt. Hon. T. (Hawick B.

  Thomasson, Franklin

  White, George (Norfolk)

  Shipman, Dr. John G.

  Thompson,J.W.H.(Somerset,E.

  White, J. D. (Dumbartonshire)

  Simon, John Allsebrook

  Tomkinson, James

  White, Luke (York, E. R.)

  Sinclair, Rt. Hon. John

  Toulmin, George

  White, Patrick (Meath, North)

  Smeaton, Donald Mackenzie

  Trevelyan, Charles Philips

  Whitehead, Rowland

  Smyth, Thomas F. (Leitrim, S.

  Ure, Alexander

  Whitley, J. H. (Halifax)

  Snowden, P.

  Verney, F. W.

  Whittaker, Sir Thomas Palmer

  Soames, Arthur Wellesley

  Villiers, Ernest Amherst

  Wiles, Thomas

  Soares, Ernest J.

  Vivian, Henry

  Williams, J. (Glamorgan)

  Spicer, Sir Albert

  Wadsworth, J.

  Williams, Llewelyn (Carm'th'n

  Stanley, Hn. A. Lylph (Chesh.)

  Walker, H. De R. (Leicester)

  Williamson, A.

  Steadman, W. C.

  Walsh, Stephen

  Wiison, Hn C.H.W.(Hull,W.)

  Stewart, Halley (Greenock)

  Walters, John Tudor

  Wilson, J. H. (Middlesbrough)

  Stewart-Smith, D. (Kendal)

  Walton, Sir John L. (Leeds, S.

  Wilson,J.W. (Worcestersh. N.)

  Strachey, Sir Edward

  Walton, Joseph (Barnsley)

  Wilson, W. T. (Westhoughton)

  Stuart, James (Sunderland)

  Ward, John (Stoke upon Trent

  Wood, T. M'Kinnon

  Sullivan, Donal

  Wardle, George J.

  Woodhouse, Sir J.T. (Hud'rsf'd

  Summerbell, T.

  Warner, Thomas Courtenay T.

  Young, Samuel

  Taylor, Austin (East Toxteth)

  Wason, Eugene (Clackmannan)

  Taylor, John W. (Durham)

  Wason, John Cathcart (Orkney

  TELLERS FOR THE AYES-Mr. Whiteley and Mr. J. A. Pease.

  Taylor, Theodore C. (Radcliffe

  Waterlow, D. S.

  Tennant, H.J. (Berwickshire)

  Watt, H. Anderson

  NOES.

  Balcarres, Lord

  Faber, George Denison (York)

  Nicholson, Wm. G. (Petersfield

  Balfour,Rt.Hn.A.J.(City Lond.

  Fell, Arthur

  Nield, Herbert

  Banbury, Sir Frederick George

  Finch, Rt. Hon. George H.

  Parkes, Ebenezer

  Baring, Hon. Guy (Winchester

  Fletcher, J. S.

  Percy, Earl

  Beach,Hn.Michael Hugh Hicks

  Forster, Henry William

  Ratcliff, Major R. F.

  Beckett, Hon. Gervase

  Gardner, Ernest (Berks, East)

  Rawlinson.John Frederick Peel

  Bertram, Julius

  Gibbs, G. A. (Bristol, West)

  Roberts, S. (Sheffield.Ecclesall)

  Bowles, G. Stewart

  Hamilton, Marquess of

  Saltor, Arthur Clavell

  Boyle, Sir Edward

  Hardy,Laurence (Kent, Ashf'd

  Scott, Sir S. (Marylebone, W.)

  Burdett-Coutts, W.

  Harrison-Broadley, Col. H. B.

  Smith.F.E. (Liverpool, Walton

  Butcher, Samuel Henry

  Heaton, John Henniker

  Smith, Hon. W. F. D. (Strand)

  Carlile, E. Hildred

  Herbert, T. Arnold (Wycombe

  Starkey, John R.

  Carson, Rt. Hon. Sir Edw. H.

  Hill, Sir Clement (Shrewsbury)

  Talbot, Lord E. (Chichester)

  Castlereagh, Viscount

  Hills, J. W.

  Talbot,Rt.Hn.J.G.(Oxf d Univ

  Cave, George

  Hunt, Rowland

  Thomson.W.Mitchell-(Lanark)

  Cavendish, Rt. Hn.Victor C.W.

  Kennaway, Rt. Hn.Sir John H.

  Thornton, Percy M.

  Cecil, Evelyn (Aston Manor) j

  Keswick, William

  Tuke, Sir John Batty

  Cecil, Lord R. (Marylebone, E.

  Kimber, Sir Henry

  Turnour, Viscount

  Coates, E. Feetham (Lewisham

  Lambton, Hon. Frederick Wm.

  Wilson, A. Stanley (York, E.R-

  Courthope, G. Loyd

  Lockwood.Rt.Hn. Lt.-Col.A.R.

  Younger, George

  Craig,Charles Curtis (Antrim,S.

  Lyttelton, Rt. Hon Alfred

  Craig,Captain James (Down.E.

  M'Calmont, Colonel James

  TELLERS FOR THE NOES—Sir Alexander Acland-Hood and Viscount Valentia.

  Craik, Sir Henry

  Mason, James F. (Windsor)

  Dalrymple, Viscount

  Meysey-Thompson, E. C.

  Douglas, Rt. Hon. A. Akers-

  Mildmay, Francis Bingham

  Duncan, Robert (Lanark.G'v'n

  Morpeth, Viscount

  And, it being after Eleven of the clock, further proceeding on consideration of the Bill, as amended, stood adjourned.
  Bill, as amended, to be further considered To-morrow.
  Whereupon Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Resolution of the House of the 4th August last.
  Adjourned at nine minutes after Eleven o'clock.

Preamble
Several Lords took the Oath.
PETITIONS.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES) BILL.
  Petitions against—Of inhabitants of parish and district of Helmsley; Shipton Mayne; parish of North Waltham. Of parents attending church schools in the parish of Moldgreen.
  Read, and ordered to lie on the Table.

RETURNS, REPORTS, ETC.
  POST OFFICE.
  Agreement between the Post Office of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Post Office of the Republic of Nicaragua, dated 4th July 1906.

  LIGHT RAILWAYS ACT, 1896.
  I. Orders made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and modified and confirmed by the Board of Trade, authorising the construction of Light Railways:— In the urban district, of Tottenham, in the county of Middlesex; in the rural district of Bath, in the county of Somerset, from Weston to Lansdown; in the rural district of Keynsham, in the county of Somerset (being an extension of the existing and authorised undertaking of Bath Electric Tramways, Limited); in the West Riding of the county of York, from Clayton West to Darton; in the parishes of Kettle and of Falkland, in the county of Fife, from Falkland Road Station to Falkland; in the county of Cardigan, from Lampeter to Aberayron, and to New Quay: in the county of Carnarvon (being an extension of the existing and authorised undertaking of) the Portmadoc, Beddgelert, and South Snowdon Railway Company), and the transfer to that company of the powers conferred upon the North Wales Narrow Gauge Railways (Beddgelert Light Rail-
  1222
  way Extension) Order, 1900, and other matters.
  II. Order made by the Light Railway Commissioners, and confirmed by the Board of Trade, amending Bere Alston and Calstock Light Railways Orders, 1900 and 1903, and for other purposes.

  AGRICULTURE AND TECHNICAL INSTRUCTION (IRELAND).
  Report on the trade in imports and exports at the Irish Ports during the year ended 31st December, 1904.
  EVICTIONS (IRELAND).
  Return of Evictions in Ireland for the Quarter ended 30th September, 1906.

  COLONIES: ANNUAL.
  No. 507. Southern Nigeria (Lagos). Report for 1905.
  Presented (by command), and ordered to lie on the Table.

  PUBLIC RECORDS (PRISONS).
  Schedule containing a list and particulars of classes of documents belonging to the prison of the Marshalsea of the Court of King's or Queen's Bench, the "Queen's Prison," the Fleet Prison, and the Prison of the Marshalsea of His Majesty's Household and Palace Court, which are not considered of sufficient public value to justify their preservation in the Public Record Office. Laid before the House (pursuant to Act), and ordered to lie on the Table.
  SALE OF INTOXICATING LIQUORS (IRELAND) BILL.
  Read 3a (according to Order), and passed.

  EDUCATION (ENGLAND AND WALES)
  House again in Committee (according to Order.)
  [The EARL of ONSLOW in the Chair]
  Clause 3:—
  *LORD REAYrose to resume the discussion of Lord Balfour's Amendment to provide that in the case of any public elementary school in which extended

  1223
  facilities were not afforded under the Act the parents of not less than twenty children might demand facilities for religious education. He said that on an educational question relating to Scotland he would find himself generally in accord with his noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. The noble Lord last night said very distinctly that the Cowper-Temple Clause was sufficient for him, and on that point, fortunately, they were in complete agreement. But then the noble Lord stated that the restraints of the Cowper-Temple Clause were derogatory to public control. On that point he did not agree with him. He thought they simply regulated the exercise of the public control, but did not destroy it.
  The noble Lord further said that the compromise of 1870 had worked well for a number of years, but had broken down. They must ascertain when it broke down. It certainly had not broken down when the Bill of 1902 was under discussion. The Cowper-Temple Clause in the provided schools was left untouched as it stood before. It would be in the memory of many of their Lordships that Lord Lytton proposed an Amendment very similar to the one submitted by Lord Balfour and which was now before the Committee, and it was important to bear in mind what the attitude of the Government of 1902 was towards that Amendment. The noble Marquess who was then at the head of the Board of Education opposed the Amendment and used these words—
  "What I said was that it would not give satisfaction to all those denominations which it is intended to benefit. I said the Nonconformists would not like it, the clergy would not like it, and the managers would not like it."
  He asked whether since 1902 anything had occurred which would make that statement at the present time less relevant or true. The noble Duke the Leader of the House at the time also opposed the Amendment in these terms—
  "This proposal does, therefore, amount to giving to the local authority in every county, and in every borough, the power, if it thinks fit, of abrogating to that extent the Cowper-Temple Clause, and our contention is that such a power cannot he given to a local authority without the certainty of raising prolonged, acrimonious, and probably interminable disputes upon
  1224
  the religious question, and it is on these grounds that we must object to this proposal."
  He asked whether noble Lords opposite could suppose that at this juncture, after all that had happened since 1902, they could accept a proposal which the Government of that day repudiated.
  Was there any reason to suppose that since 1902 the country had been dissatisfied with the provision made for religious instruction in provided schools? He confessed that he saw no evidence of it. He did not think there were any symptoms that the country wanted a change made in that direction, and whatever opposition there was to this Bill, it was not on that ground. It was caused by other enactments in the Bill, and not by those which left the provided schools untouched as they were left in the Act of 1902. Had the parents who sent their children to the provided schools shown in any way that they wanted the facilities which the noble Lord proposed to give them? He had not seen any trace of it. His noble friend said he was desirous that, if this instruction which he proposed should be given was to be given, it should not be given by outsiders as a rule, but by the teachers. He was not surprised that the noble Lord, with his knowledge of the requirements of discipline in the schools, had made that reservation. But if the teachers of the school were to give this denominational instruction, then he did not see how that could be done without imposing the tests which it was the object of this Bill to abolish. The noble Lord also laid stress on the obligation that the teachers should only teach what they believed. He did not disagree with him, but he thought that the safeguards in the Bill exempting teachers who did not wish to give religious instruction were quite sufficient.
  He thought that, for instance, in London there would be a considerable difficulty in making the necessary arrangements. The noble Lord had alluded to London, and he (Lord Reay) might perhaps be allowed, with his experience of London schools, to state that the religious instruction as it was given under the London School Board formerly, and is given now in the County Council schools,

  1225
  had never given rise to any difficulty. The parents in no way objected to that instruction or wished to receive at the hands of the public authority more than the definite instruction which can be given under the Cowper-Temple Clause. Neither had there ever been any difficulty in finding teachers to give that instruction. But if they were going to accept this proviso and impose these new duties on the teachers, he was more than doubtful whether the teachers in these schools would be prepared to give this more specific instruction. There was considerable danger that by accepting this Amendment they would imperil the smooth working of the present system of giving religious instruction.
  During the time he (Lord Reay) was Chairman of the London School Board there were no difficulties, and he might remind the Committee that on the occasion of the Amendment to which he had alluded—Lord Lytton's Amendment— the most rev. Primate, then Lord Bishop of Winchester, stated that—
  "He saw great difficulty in such a plan as this working in the great board schools of our large towns, and that personally, if he were a manager of one of those schools, he would be very loth to take advantage of this privilege."
  Therefore, the Committee would notice that, with regard to the difficulties, which he thought would be very great in provided schools, he could claim the most rev. Primate as being on his side. He would also remind the Committee that one of the most experienced educationists this country had ever known, and one of the fairest minded of men, Sir Joshua Fitch, had said of this proposal that—
  " The effect of the adoption of such a plan on the general discipline of the school, and on the authority of the head teacher, would be disastrous."
  What would be the state of things which under this Bill would arise in London? Under the Bill the religious instruction given in the provided schools would remain what it was. In the transferred voluntary schools they would have either the facilities given under Clause 3 or the facilities given under Clause 4, and he trusted and believed that the local authority in London would certainly not be illiberal in conceding those privileges to transferred voluntary schools. Therefore, after the passing of this Bill,
  1226
  in the educational system of London there would be hardly any perceptible difference as regards the religious instruction in the different schools. But if they accepted the Amendment now before the Committee, then undoubtedly they created an element of friction with regard to the administration of the provided schools which was now absent.
  He was quite prepared to admit that parents of children attending council schools, if they desired such supplemental and additional instruction as was contemplated in the Amendment, ought to have it, and he saw no objection whatever to such instruction being given out of school hours by the various Churches to which those parents belonged. There was no difficulty in giving opportunities out of school hours for the children in the council schools to get that education which already in many instances was given to them; and the excellent Biblical instruction which was imparted under the Cowper-Temple Clause in the London schools was an admirable foundation on which to build that further instruction which could be given on Saturday, or in Sunday-schools, or at other convenient hours. He was as anxious as his noble friend to meet the wishes of the parents and any conscientious scruples which might arise, but he was not convinced that the method proposed in this Amendment was the method most likely to attain that object. It was on this ground that he was not prepared to vote for the Amendment proposed by his noble friend.
  *LORD AMPTHILLrose to move, as an Amendment to the proposed Amendment, that the word "ten" be substituted for the word "twenty." He desired to say a few words on the general principle of the Amendment before the Committee, and incidentally to make some reply to the noble Lord who had just spoken. The noble Earl the Lord President of the Council was good enough to suggest that he should make the explanation which he had to make regarding the Amendments standing in his name on the Paper in the discussion on Clause 3, and he could do so most conveniently it this moment without bringing up

  1227
  his actual Amendments. Indeed, he could do so in a very simple manner by merely referring to the eloquent speech which was made last night by the former Secretary for Scotland. That speech reminded him of a story which must have been familiar to their Lordships in their childhood, of a man who, being unable to commit to memory the prayers which he desired to say daily to the Almighty, or else being incapable of the effort of that repetition, wrote his prayers out on a card and performed his duty by pointing to the card daily and saying "Them's my sentiments." He (Lord Ampthill) thought, when listening to the noble Lord last night, that Lord Balfour's speech in every way represented the sentiments which he himself held.
  If the Committee would allow him to refer to his noble friend's arguments as the justification of the case which he had intended to put forward, he would be able to refrain from reiteration just as he should refrain from pressing proposals which he knew were not acceptable to the Committee. He thought, however, that his Amendments would have effected the object which the noble Lord had in view in a more direct and simple manner. They would have done away with the necessity for all the complicated provisions in Clauses 3 and 4 of the Bill. What were facilities unless they were exceptions to the rule? And when they made one rule for all by giving equal rights to all there could be no possible occasion for exceptions. He went further and claimed for the principle which had been advocated by the noble Lord that, so far from contravening the principle of the Bill, it only extended it to its logical conclusion. The Bill proposed that there should be facilities for some. The noble Lord's suggestion was that there should be facilities for all.
  He agreed with the noble Lord that the Bill, however it might be amended, would not finally settle this question, and he could only share his noble friend's surprise that this Government, which boasted of being democratic, if it was nothing else, should not have put forward legislation more democratic in principle than that contained in this Bill. What, after all, was the object of the Bill?
  1228
  It was as well to keep that steadily in view. It was to assert a principle and to remove two grievances. The principle, that of popular control, had been fully asserted, but neither this Bill nor any Bill on similar lines would redress the grievances. What, then, were the grievances? As he understood, the grievances were simply these, that Nonconformists were obliged to pay for religious instruction of which they disapproved, and that Nonconformist teachers suffered from restricted opportunities of appointment and promotion. They could not fairly remove the first grievance by imposing it on Anglicans and Roman Catholics, nor the second by imposing even more painful and odious restrictions on teachers who were not Nonconformists, restrictions which disabled them from teaching in the manner in which they felt bound and obliged to teach, namely, in accordance with their own religious convictions and faith. As had been said by many, both in their Lordships' House and in another place, there were only two possible alternative solutions. The first was that the State should not provide religious instruction for anybody, and the second was that the State should provide for everybody the religious instructions desired. There was an overwhelming consensus of opinion in favour of the latter course, and that was why he had endeavoured to advocate that course in the simplest and most direct manner.
  But he would ask their Lordships to follow him a step further. If it was agreed—and it was universally agreed, he thought—that religious instruction should form an integral and essential part of national education, why should the State not pay for it? Why, then, should it not be as compulsory as the secular part of education, and why should it be treated as a mere extra, like dancing, drawing, or deportment? He knew that the objection which would be made was the old one that they would have some ratepayers paying for religious instruction of which they did not approve; but, if they carried the principle of the Bill to its logical conclusion and gave to everybody the religious instruction that each man wanted, the natural and inevitable result would

  1229
  be that nobody would be paying for anybody else. As for the other objection, the tests for teachers, assuming that the numbers of teachers were in proportion to the numbers of their coreligionists, it followed, as a matter of course, that every teacher, with perhaps a negligible amount of exceptions, could be appointed to a school where his own creed was taught. He could not see any insuperable objections to this scheme, nor did he for one moment believe it would lead to that strife and difficulty which the noble Lord who spoke last had foreshadowed.
  He would remind their Lordships that the principle which underlay State-provided compulsory pan-denominational religious instruction—the system which he was advocating and which he was convinced would eventually form the solution of this great question, already existed in the law of the land. It was asserted in the Industrial Schools Act, 1866, and in the Elementary Education (Schools for the Blind) Act, 1893, which was passed in the last year of Mr. Gladstone's Administration. He would quote the words from that Act, because they stated the principle in a most clear and unequivocal manner—
  "Where a child is required, in pursuance of this Act, to attend any school, the child shall not be compelled to receive religious instruction contrary to the wishes of the parents, and shall as far as practicable have facilities for receiving religious instruction and attending religious services conducted in accordance with the parents' persuasion, which shall be duly registered on the child's admission to the school."
  He thought that was the way this system could be worked. There would be no necessity for calling meetings of parents and holding ballots. The religious persuasion of the parents, or the particular religion that the parents wished the child to be taught in the event of their not desiring it to receive instruction in the doctrines of their own religion, could be entered on the register on the child's entry to the school. The principle to which he had referred was also accepted and endorsed by the Unionist Party in putting forward their abortive Education Bill in 1906. He held that a system of State-provided denominational schools must sooner or later be the solution of this question; but he recognised the
  1230
  difficulty of introducing it in this Bill, and would not press the Amendment which stood in his name. In conclusion, he begged to move that the word "ten" be substituted for the word "twenty" in Lord Balfour's Amendment, for he considered it highly desirable that minorities should be protested. Ten was a good round number, and a minority of ten, he ventured to say, was not a negligible quantity.
  Amendment moved to the proposed Amendment—
  "To leave out the word 'twenty' and insert the word 'ten.' "—(Lord Ampthill.)
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: My Lords, the noble Lord who has just sat down has in his remarks travelled over a somewhat wider field than that which I think was covered by the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. I shall not, therefore, follow him, but I desire very briefly to state why I, at all events, am unable at this stage of the Bill to give my support to my noble friend. In speaking on the Second Reading of this Bill before the Recess I used a few words which briefly explained the position I take on the question which has been raised by my noble friend. I said on that occasion—
  "I have no doubt Amendments will be moved in this House for obtaining facilities for denominational teaching in council schools. For myself, I desire to see as little disturbance as possible of our existing system, and I do not desire to commit myself to support such Amendments until I see what, if any, concession the Government are prepared to make in regard to giving real facilities for denominational teaching in the transferred schools; but if no concessions in that direction are to be made, then I am of opinion that there is a good deal to be said for a provision which will place all provided schools on the same footing in regard to religious as well as to secular instruction."
  I adhere to those words, and, although I cannot say that I see any very obvious signs that the Government are likely to make any concession which would secure what I should consider adequate facilities for religious instruction in the transferred schools, yet we have not yet disposed of either Clauses 3 or 4, which deal with these facilities. I think that, in pursuance of the pledge which I then

  1231
  gave, I should not be justified in supporting any interference with the Cowper-Temple Clause until I know whether we are fully possessed of the intentions of His Majesty's Government in regard to the facilities in the transferred schools. But even if those facilities offered by the Government are not so satisfactory as I might desire, still I should hesitate to give my support to an Amendment of so wide a character as that which was proposed last night by my noble friend. It is almost identical, I think, with that which has been placed on the Paper by the most rev. Primate. My noble friend is reported in The Times to have said last night that he did not propose to repeal the Cowper-Temple Clause. I do not recollect hearing my noble friend make that statement, but he is reported to have so spoken in The Times report of his speech.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: I did use those words. My opinion is that, although my Amendment cuts deeply into the Cowper-Temple Clause, it is not technically a repeal of it.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: It appears to me that the Amendment is not only a repeal of the Cowper-Temple Clause, but an absolute reversal of its principle. The Cowper-Temple Clause, as has been pointed out in these discussions over and over again, is simply of a prohibitive character. It prohibits the giving of denominational instruction in any schools which have been built at the public expense. The Amendment of my noble friend would not only repeal this prohibition, but it would positively indicate that in certain specified cases denominational instruction of that character should be given in these schools.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: But not paid for out of the rates.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: The Cowper-Temple Clause provides that denominational instruction shall not be given in those schools at all. My noble friend's Amendment provides that, under certain circumstances, such teaching shall be given in those schools. I cannot conceive a more absolute repeal, and not
  1232
  only repeal but reversal, of the principle of the Cowper-Temple Clause. I have no doubt there would be a great deal to be said for leaving greater liberty to the local authorities, and permitting them, in cases where they thought fit, to grant facilities in the schools under their control for denominational teaching for the children of those parents who desire it. But that Amendment is not the Amendment which is before the Committee at the present time, and it is no use to discuss it.
  My unwillingness to support this Amendment does not rest on any special importance which I attach to what is spoken of as the compromise of 1870. I attach no particular sanctity to the Cowper-Temple Clause. As I said in my speech on the Second Reading of this Bill, I do not see that it possesses any very great attraction for any of us. I entirely agree with what was said by the noble Viscount Lord St. Aldwyn the other day, that the so-called compromise of 1870 has, partly by the Act of 1902 and partly by the present Bill, been effectually destroyed. It is not on those grounds, therefore, that I deprecate any Amendment of the Cowper-Temple Clause. I know that the present Government in this Bill do propose a partial repeal of the Cowper-Temple Clause. If I feel, as I do, a very strong reluctance to agree to any further inroad on the Cowper-Temple Clause or its principle, it arises from the doubts which I entertain as to the practical working of any such attempt to modify it, and because of the apprehension which I feel that any attempt to enforce a reversal or modification of the Cowper-Temple Clause would cause a disturbance of the existing organisation and arrangements of a great number of board schools which are at present working in a perfectly smooth and satisfactory manner.
  My noble friend says that he is of opinion that it is on the lines of this Amendment that the settlement of the religious difficulty must ultimately be found. I do not know that I should be inclined in any degree to controvert the proposition of my noble friend if I saw the slightest probability that the solution which he indicates would be accepted, not only by all religious sects in this country,

  1233
  but by those who are engaged in the practical work of education, or by the teachers who are engaged in that work. But, my Lords, I see no probability of any such general acceptance on the part of those who are practically engaged in the work of education, and it seems to me that any attempt to force it either upon the managers or upon the teachers in our board schools, probably in many cases unwilling authorities and unwilling teaches, would only tend to give additional fuel to the flames of our religious controversy.
  I do not see any necessary difficulty in the arrangement under which it is proposed by the Bill that facilities for special religious instruction shall be given in the schools which are transferred to the local education authority. Those arrangements and the mode in which they are to be carried out will have been laid down in formal agreements between the present trustees of the schools and the local education authorities who are to take them over. Local authorities will have made themselves parties to those agreements, and I have no doubt whatever that they will loyally carry them out. There may, I think, be some difficulty in carrying out the facilities proposed to be given in a certain class of schools in the Amendment which was placed on the Paper yesterday by my noble friend Lord St. Aldwyn—an Amendment which, I do not exactly know why, has entirely disappeared from the Paper—but I do not think there would have been any insuperable difficulty in carrying out the arrangement which it proposed, that certain facilities should be given in council schools for children who were deprived of religious facilities in schools which might not be taken over by the local education authority.
  The present proposal is not in any degree related to the case of the transferred schools. It is a proposal to impose upon a class of schools which are not otherwise affected by this Bill a provision to which a large number of them will probably entertain the strongest objection. The proposal to place in the power of a certain number—a large or a small number—of parents the right to demand that special religious facili-
  1234
  ties shall be given in these schools is one which is perfectly certain to be resented and resisted by a very large number of local authorities—a resistance in which they will be backed by the teachers, who will, either honestly or for controversial purposes, plausibly at all events, assert that such an arrangement would be destructive of the discipline and proper organisation of their schools.
  I entertain a very strong opinion that, whatever Parliament may enact, it will be impossible, in practice, to enforce any such provision against an unwilling body of managers. The Amendment does contain the words "so far as may reasonably be practicable." In my opinion those would be found to be the most operative words in the Amendment. The unwilling managers, the managers who did not wish to see any change introduced in the organisation of their schools, would say that the granting of these facilities was not reasonably practicable, and there the matter would end unless the Board of Education were prepared, either by the insertion of provisions in the Code or by laying down regulations for each particular school, to solve this difficulty. The task is one I should be very unwilling to impose on the Board of Education. For these reasons, and believing that the Amendment would go very far in the direction of the disturbance of a system which at all events in the board schools is now working satisfactorily and well, I cannot assent, at any rate at the present stage of the Bill, to vote for the Amendment.
  THE UNDER-SECRETARY OF STATE FOR WAR (The Earl of PORTSMOUTH)thought it would be well that he should say a few words to explain why it was impossible for those who sat on the Ministerial side to give their practical support to the Amendment of his noble friend. There would be general agreement that some religious teaching should be given to the young by teachers who believed in what they taught, but they were not discussing an abstract question of that kind. For himself, he confessed that, if it were acceptable to the general body of the people of this country, it would be an exceedingly desirable thing to make the

  1235
  State responsible for secular education only and leave religion to the various religious bodies, but the House of Commons had decided most emphatically in favour of religious education.
  The main objection to the proposal of his noble friend was on administrative grounds. Such a system of pan-de-nominationalism would result in—as had been said in the House of Commons— something like pandemonium, and in most schools there was not the accommodation to allow of such teaching being given. He would like to recall their Lordships' attention to the Bill itself. As the Bill now stood, with the Amendments introduced by their Lordships, local authorities would be bound to take over all schools subject to an appeal to the Board of Education, who would have regard to the wishes of parents, and it seemed to him to be superfluous to go on to say that in all the schools there should be these facilities. Clause 4 provided the four-fifths facilities, but did his noble friend propose that in these denominational schools there should be this provision for special teaching? Let them take the Roman Catholic schools. Were Methodists and members of the Church of England to enter Catholic schools and there teach their own particular doctrines? Clause 4 was considered by many not only a very considerable concession, but a very remarkable excrescence on the Bill as it now stood. Were provided schools to be subject to these facilities and were the other schools to be exempt? If his noble friend's Amendment were carried he did not think it would be possible for the Government to maintain that the special schools under Clause 4 were not to fare exactly in the same way as the board schools, and he was quite sure that the introduction of the principle now proposed by his noble friend in regard to the schools affected by Clause 4 would be deeply and most thoroughly resented by them.
  There were in this country differences of principle which did not arise in Scotland. Although a noble Marquess had said that he was in favour of religious instruction of one sort or another, he did not care which, there was an enormous
  1236
  number of people in this country who were very much concerned as to the kind of religious education given; and the difficulties confronting them in regard to this Bill had been encountered in the attempt to formulate any kind of general religious instruction which would be acceptable to a large number of people. He sincerely wished they could support the Amendment of his noble friend, but he did not think they could, for the reasons he had stated. Part of the proposal would infringe one of the main principles of the Bill, which was that there should be in no sense whatever, direct or indirect, any religious test for the teacher.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I understand that my noble friend Lord Ampthill does not intend to press his Amendment, and he will, therefore, I am sure, acquit me of discourtesy if I do not attempt to discuss it. With some of the remarks which fell from him I am entirely in accord; but, speaking generally, I may say that his proposal went a good deal further than that embodied in my noble friend Lord Balfour's Amendment, and involved a much more considerable disturbance of the fabric of the Bill upon the Table. For that reason I am glad that he does not insist upon taking the opinion of your Lordships' House upon it.
  With regard to the Amendment of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, my noble friend proposes that in transferred schools ordinary facilities should be given when they are stipulated for in the original bargain; and in the council schools he proposes that the same facilities should be given when they are demanded by a sufficient number of parents. I understand that it is to the second of those proposals that most of the objections which have been made this evening are directed. I observe that the noble Duke who spoke just now from the Table dwelt upon the fact that in the case of the transferred schools there would be an initial agreement which might be carried out without difficulty, and he pointed out that in the case of the council schools there would be no corresponding agreement. I take it that the way the thing would work would be this, that in the

  1237
  case of the council schools there would be an arrangement made subject to the approval of the Board of Education, and I cannot myself see that that distinction is very real, or that the difficulty is a very formidable one.
  My noble friend Lord Balfour stipulates that these facilities should be given so far as is reasonably practicable. To me those are by no means meaningless or idle words. I regard them as meaning that the facilities should be given only when, after a full inquiry into all the facts of the case, it has been ascertained beyond doubt that the thing is possible without doing injustice or serious inconvenience to the parties concerned. These words, it is true, are somewhat vague words; but you must, in a Bill of this kind, however much you dislike it, leave a great deal of latitude to the authorities who will afterwards interpret it. You cannot possibly cover in an Act of Parliament of this sort all the minute points which are likely to arise in the administration of the law. In this case the local education authority and the Board of Education will have to decide in what manner effect can best be given to this provision. It may be desirable that we should add more directory words, or further safeguards. I am quite ready to discuss those if any noble Lord thinks fit to propose them, but upon the main principle of my noble friend's Amendment, that these facilities should be given in the case which I have supposed, I for one feel no doubt whatever.
  While I say this, I deprecate as much as the noble Duke did any needless interference with these council schools. The noble Lord who spoke first this evening quoted some observations made by the noble Duke in the year 1902 as to the objections to interference with the council schools. But, my Lords, surely the noble Lord must remember that the situation to-day is not the situation with which we were face to face with in 1902. In that year we were considering how the voluntary schools could best be preserved. In 1906 we are considering a proposal which some of us think is intended
  1238
  to obliterate the voluntary schools. Therefore, I disregard all obiter dicta carrying us back to the condition of things in 1902. I say by all means, if in any of these council schools things are working so smoothly and satisfactorily that nobody wishes to have them altered, let these schools be left alone. But if things are working with absolute smooth-ness and in a satisfactory manner there will be no demand for a change. The proposal of my noble friend refers only to cases in which the demand for a change is put forward by a substantial minority of parents. I go further and say that if it is the pleasure of any of your Lordships to propose that in cases where these facilities are unnecessary owing to the fact that other schools affording the kind of religion desired by the I minority of the children are accessible, that would be clearly to my mind a circumstance which would have to be taken into consideration, and which might reasonably be held to remove the necessity for affording facilities in the school itself. If both those conditions are absent, if a substantial minority of the children really desire these facilities, and if they are unable to obtain them in another conveniently situated school, is it unreasonable to say that in this new departure which we are about to make it should be provided that those facilities should be given in the school itself? That seems to me only common sense and even-handed justice.
  Then we have been warned of the immense administrative difficulties which attend this proposal. My Lords, we are confronted with considerable administrative difficulties in other parts of the Bill as it stands proposed by noble Lords opposite, and I do not gather that they are deterred by those administrative difficulties. Could anything be more complicated and difficult to administer than the provisions of Clause 4 as we find it in the Bill, and yet the Minister for Education declared only the other day that the mode of granting these facilities was in his mind a very small matter indeed. He could not conceive that dispute or discussion could ever arise. If it is so easy to deal with the administrative difficulties under Clause 4, why should it

  1239
  be so difficult to deal with the administrative difficulties which may or may not arise under the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh? Reference has been made to the position of the teacher under this Amendment. A great deal will depend upon the teacher and upon the position in which we leave the teacher after we have completed the consideration of the Bill in your Lordships' House. The noble Duke spoke of forcing upon the teacher the duty of giving religious instruction of this sort. There is no proposal—it does not enter into our minds to propose—that the teacher should ever be forced to give religious instruction of which he conscientiously disapproved.
  THE DUKE OF DEVONSHIRE: I intended to say forced on the authority.
  THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: But even the authority would not necessarily be compelled to give the instruction itself. What I do hope is that when this Bill leaves your Lordships' House the teacher will be allowed to give this instruction if he is willing and competent to give it, and I feel confident that if he is allowed to give it you will find in these council schools that he will be very glad to give it in ninety-nine cases out of a hundred. If he is capable of giving the Cowper-Temple instruction and is willing to give it, he probably will not be very reluctant to give special instruction to children who desire to obtain it; and I think he will certainly much prefer doing so to allowing teachers from outside to be imported into his school.
  What has struck me throughout this argument is that His Majesty's Government are very easily deterred by the difficulties which are anticipated when our proposals are put forward, and that they are very cou ageous indeed when they have to face the difficulties which their measure must inevitably provoke. For is it not the case that His Majesty's Government are, under this Bill, going to put the 14,000 voluntary schools into the melting-pot, and yet are reluctant to allow any interference whatever with the 6,000 odd council schools which they are taking under their special care? In my view, if this Bill is to be made the
  1240
  foundation of anything which can be called a national settlement, the settlement must be on the basis of even-handed justice between the parties, and you will not get that even-handed justice unless, as a compensation for the far-reaching interference which is going to take place with the voluntary schools, you allow, subject to sufficient safeguards, these reasonable and moderate facilities in the council schools. We are asking you to act upon a principle upon which we are always in the habit of acting in the case of schools connected with the Army, with the Navy, and with our prisons; it is a principle which is accepted in Scotland; it is a principle which prevails in one at least of our great colonies; it is above all things, a Liberal principle; and it is because I believe that this Bill is predestined to failure unless that principle is accepted, and accepted upon the lines of Lord Balfour's Amendment, that if he goes to a division I shall very gladly follow him into the lobby.
  *THE EARL OF JERSEYsaid that on this Amendment he would not have the good fortune to follow his usual leader in the division which would take place. The action he proposed to take with regard to the Amendment of his noble friend Lord Balfour was not actuated by any indifference to religious teaching. Personally he was a denominationalist; but at the same time he recognised that it was impossible to carry out to the full under this Bill the proposal of Lord Balfour. What was their position at the present time? They were endeavouring to obtain the best possible terms for the schools which were to be transferred, and were anxious to retain in those schools religious teaching if possible. But the Amendment made a sort of raid on the compromise under the Act of 1870. It asked their Lordships to turn that arrangement inside out, and to obtain in the case of all schools free entry for religious instruction of any kind, no matter how small might be the number of children who required it in comparison with the total number of children in the school. He could not be a party to the tearing up of what was a compromise between two schools of thought under the Act of 1870, for he

  1241
  was convinced that if they succeeded in carrying the Amendment it wóuld but increase very largely feelings of religious discontent and animosity in the country.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid that as he had ventured to put down an Amendment of a somewhat different character from that now under discussion, he hoped he might be permitted to say one or two words by way of explanation. The noble Lord in his Amendment had carried them into very deep water, and his (the right rev. Prelate's) desire was that they should, if possible, steer a little closer to the safe shore in this matter. The noble Lord's Amendment amounted to a claim for universal entry into all schools, and he ventured to think that nearly all those persons who had practical experience of the administration of our elementary schools in great towns and cities would agree that the inevitable effect of the Amendment would be to introduce administrative confusion. Moreover, as had been pointed out that afternoon, if all the already existing denominational schools were to be preserved, why, then, in the great centres of population, where there would be as a rule abundant choice of schools, did such an Amendment become necessary?
  As to confusion, he felt sure that noble Lords had only to concentrate their thoughts on the matter for a moment to realise what confusion might arise at any moment, and what local quarrels, differences, and antagonisms might be evoked by such a proposal. Any sect which could say they had twenty or thirty children attending a particular school could demand entry into that school. Even in the case of the Church they might have various forms of religious instruction demanded in the same school and in the same room. Therefore he sincerely hoped the noble Lord and his friends would agree to withdraw the Amendment. He ventured to think that his own proposal was of a more practical and reasonable kind. He did not know how far even his proposal would be accepted by the great mass of the supporters of council schools; he had his fears, and yet his hopes; but he was sure that the Amendment moved by the noble
  1242
  Lord would be so deeply resented in a great part of the country that it would become an absolutely Utopian proposal.
  He thought that any difficulty which existed would be met by the Amendment that he had placed on the Paper to the effect that in rural areas where there was but one public elementary school, if a reasonable number of the parents required facilities those facilities should not be refused. He made this proposal entirely on account of his own personal experience. In the city of Hereford it was only within the last few months that they had had even one single council school, the inhabitants, whatever their denominational views, having had to content themselves with either Church or Roman Catholic schools. If Lord Balfour's Amendment were to become law even, this one school might be invaded by the denominations, and there would be a great deal of local resentment, to say nothing of administrative confusion. His own Amendment, he believed, would be sufficient for all reasonable requirements, since in schools in rural districts there was a reasonable claim for this kind of permission.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURYsaid the reason why in country dioceses they felt so strongly was because they were asked to give up a very great deal indeed. They were giving up in 8,000 rural schools pretty nearly everything that had made the school question dear to them in past years. He did not think it was understood by noble Lords what enormous sacrifices they were asked to make. What they wanted was nothing for themselves specially, but something for the cause of religious education, in which they desired their Nonconformist brethren to have equal rights with themselves. Lord Balfour's Amendment was much more liberal than it had appeared to be—it gave facilities all round, and he might say that the Church as long ago as 1896 passed Resolutions in Convocation showing her perfect readiness to open her schools to Nonconformist teachers, provided facilities all round were granted.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHENwas glad the Bishop of Hereford proposed at least

  1243
  an Amendment which would do something for the rural districts. But if the same case could be shown to exist in urban districts he expected the right rev. Bishop would not discard the principle in that case. It was a principle which could not be disturbed by geography, but only by the existence of other opportunities for giving religious instruction. But they must look not only to the present but to the future, and see that those facilities would at a more distant date be given in transferred schools which they on that side desired. And in proportion as transferred schools might disappear, or might not be taken over at all, they should be anxious, he presumed, to secure facilities in council schools.
  The Bishop of Hereford had spoken of the resentment that might be felt in regard to the council schools, 6,000 in number, but there were about 12,000 church schools, and was there no resentment on their side? Ought not the feelings of those who were responsible for those schools to be considered also? Let there be no talk about resentment, and let them endeavour to arrive at a fair compromise irrespective of any religious feeling on either side. Lord Jersey had objected to the compromise of 1870 being torn up. He was himself one of the authors of that compromise, and a greater tearing up of it he had never seen or imagined than this Bill, which supplanted those voluntary schools which were left and which were intended to be the chief educational resource of the country, and whose continued existence was to be encouraged. The tearing up argument could not hold good for a moment.
  Noble Lords opposite were doubtless glad of the inroad which was made on the voluntary schools in 1902. He would not labour the point, but he must insist upon it, that that compromise was gone, that it could no longer be considered as existing. They must build a new structure altogether, and that new structure must be founded on justice to all denominations. It was said that the Amendment went too far. It might, perhaps, go too far for the moment, but they had got to look ahead, and why he was strongly in favour of the principle of
  1244
  the Amendment was that he foresaw that the number of voluntary schools, before they were transferred and after they were transferred, were going to be reduced more than noble Lords on the other side of the House had hitherto acknowledged was likely to be the case.
  Mr. Birrell'sidea was that there would be few schools that would not be taken over—he contemplated that the majority would be taken over. He thought that view must have been exploded to a very considerable degree by the debates on Clause 2, and by no one more than by Lord Stanley of Alderley. It was the avowed policy of that noble Lord, and of the educational Party with whom he acted, to amalgamate, to concentrate schools as far as possible, and to diminish the number of the voluntary schools. Therefore, they must contemplate, partly from educational reform, partly from municipal ambition, and partly, possibly, from prejudice—he hoped not in many cases—that from all these causes acting together a number of voluntary schools would not be taken over, and if they were not to be taken over, surely simple justice required that, if large numbers disappeared, as they were bound to disappear, in the council schools which were to take their place and supersede them, there should, at all events, be facilities for those children who had had to leave the voluntary schools because they were extinguished by the action of the local authority.
  He hailed the acknowledgment of that principle by the Bishop of Hereford. He wished he could had it on the part of the Government. Would the Government acknowledge that principle to a certain extent? Would they say "We disagree with your premise, but we recognise that, in proportion as the voluntary schools disappear, the parents who like denominational religion shall have facilities for their children in the council schools?" A declaration on the part of the Government that they thought that justice would go far to meet their views on this part of the subject. He felt strongly that it was the bounden duty of that House, as a matter of justice, to provide liberally for the children who were now in the 14,000 denominational schools, and to ensure that, in proportion

  1245
  as they came under county councils, denominational teaching should be afforded by the local authorities.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: My Lords, I think perhaps it is as well that I should intervene at this point in this important discussion. As the noble Lord, Lord Balfour of Burleigh, whose Amendment we are considering, said last night, this is one of the great and important Amendments of the Bill, and I need not say that I have listened with the deepest interest to my noble friend's speech. If he will allow me to say so, I think he travelled somewhat unnecessarily beyond the actual terms of his Amendment. He devoted a very considerable portion of his speech to the question of tests for teachers. I have no doubt that the noble Lord considered it necessary to his argument to do so, but I am bound to say that while I was admiring the fervid eloquence of my noble friend, I could not help thinking what would have been the fate of a learned counsel appearing before one of those tribunals over which my noble friend presides with such distinction who attempted, in discussing Clause 3, to devote half his time to Clause 8.
  The discussion to-night has not followed so wide a range. It was begun by my noble friend Lord Reay, who, as a former chairman of the London School Board, speaks with great authority on this question. I have no doubt that we shall later have the pleasure of hearing another ex-chairman of the London School Board opposite taking part in it. My noble friend Lord Balfour spoke last night of his Amendment as going a long way towards the establishment of a national system, approximating schools to one type. I do not mean to say that that is exactly what the noble Lord said, but it is evident that what is meant by a national system in this connection is a very great uniformity of type in our schools; and the noble Viscount who has just sat down said, I think, in very much the same sense, that no system could be said to be of a national character which was not fair all round and which did not deal out equal justice in this religious matter to all the different parties.
  1246
  There is one noble Lord who had an Amendment on the Paper—Lord Ampthill —who, I think, has had rather scant justice done to him in the course of this debate. I think that his Amendment approached far more nearly to the ideal of a national system than either the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Balfour or that of the most rev. Primate. What Lord Ampthill proposed was a really national system. He would sweep away Clauses 3, 4, and 5, all his schools are of one type, and every school in England and Wales would depend upon the existing conditions. That is a perfectly intelligible policy if you could carry it out in this country, and I am very far from saying that there is not a great deal to be said for it, but it is not the policy which is carried out by the Amendment of my noble friend Lord Balfour or by that of the most rev. Primate. Lord Balfour and the Archbishop of Canterbury in effect maintain a very large number of denominational schools, and give to a great many more schools a possible denominational character which they do not at present possess. Think what sort of schools might exist under Lord Balfour's Amendment. You have a transferred school in a small country village where the church atmosphere is strong. It gets five days a week facilities, the teacher is to be a Churchman, and he is to give the religious teaching.
  VISCOUNT GOSCHEN: Five days a week?
  THE EARL OF CREWE: There is no reason why it should not be so under Lord Balfour's Amendment. The teacher, as I say, is a Churchman and is to give the religious teaching. Will anybody who knows what the atmosphere of the ordinary country village is say that that can be anything but a purely denominational school, for which the local authority will be paying the rent, for which it will be undertaking the cost of all the repairs? I have no doubt that the most rev. Primate will say that he would be delighted to offer any Nonconformist child in that parish facilities. What, again, to anybody who knows the conditions of life in a village of that kind is the use of offering facilities to a small number of Primitive Methodist children?

  1247
  In the first place, who is to give the teaching? Everybody knows that in these very poor churches those who would naturally give that teaching are, as a rule, working men, whose time would be taken up at the necessary hour. In these circumstances I am sure that the most admirable and fairly-intended reciprocal offer of facilities by the Church of England in these districts would be, and would be held to be by those for whom it was intended, nothing but illusory.
  After all, facilities depend not merely on the offer of certain things, but on the power of using them. There are facilities for most things. If a poor curate earning £100 a year is ordered to take a long sea voyage for the benefit of his health, the facility exists for him the same as for any Member of your Lordships' House, but there are necessary also leisure and wealth, which I am glad to think your Lordships' possess, but which are lacking in the case of the unfortunate curate. What I desire your Lordships to consider in this connection is that there are two distinct possible systems, one dependent upon the past history of these denominational schools, and the other dependent upon the wishes of the parents and the circumstances of the moment. Those are two utterly different things, and, in many cases, very likely utterly incompatible things. After all, the trust represents the benevolence and money of some person or persons who is or are either dead or will be dead before very long. The trust coolly proceeds on its way year after year, through generations of children, insisting on a certain kind of teaching without any necessary reference to the wishes of the parents. The wishes of the parents, if they are paramount, depend upon some such plan as that proposed by my noble friend Lord Ampthill. What we complain of is that in these Amendments the Church of England is trying to have it both ways.
  In all cases where there has been a trust, in all these ex-denominational schools as they are to be, you insist upon every possible care being taken for the preservation, so far as may be, of the denominational atmosphere. The most rev.
  1248
  Primate spoke the other day of some plan by which the managers of such schools should have some voice, at any rate, in the election of the teacher, even if they were not empowered to veto a particular teacher. No one can have listened to the discussions of the last few days without having seen that the desire of the majority of this House is that these transferred schools should retain as far as possible their Church character. Noble Lords opposite cheer; they do not wish to conceal it. Then it does seem to me a most astonishing thing that, besides enforcing in this House that claim, you also want to invade the schools of the country—the board schools—which have been hitherto free from all denominational teaching of any sort or kind.
  If you are prepared utterly to resign and give up the denominational character of the transferred schools and go for the single system suggested by the noble Lord opposite, Lord Ampthill, I am bound to say that nobody could contend that that would be an unfair plan, but whether it is a practicable and possible plan in this country under existing circumstances is quite another matter. It would no doubt have a great many advantages from our point of view. We should get rid of practically all the trouble connected with the transfer of these schools, and we should get rid of the exceedingly complicated and, as we frankly admit, not entirely satisfactory conditions of Clauses 4 and 5. But I should like to hear some noble Lord who is able to speak for the Roman Catholic Church state what in his opinion the position of things would be if we had a system of schools which denied atmosphere and merely granted facilities.
  I turn for one moment to the Amendment as it stands. I admit once more the great attractiveness of the idea. It undoubtedly would mean that instead of attempting to give a quid pro quo to the Church of England, as we do by means of the minor facilities in each parish and by way of rent, we should be offering to the Church a national quid pro quo pooled, so to speak, over the whole ecclesiastical system, and which therefore would avoid the countless details with which, undoubtedly, this present settlement will have to deal. I ask

  1249
  once more, Can that be done? The noble Duke opposite (the Duke of Devonshire) speaks with great experience and authority on this matter, and I cannot help thinking that your Lordships must have been greatly impressed by his inability to see how this proposal could work. This multiplication of facilities has, as it seems to me, this one fatal defect, that you cannot find any educational authority who will speak favourably of it.
  It is not the case that the opposition to this proposal is mainly or essentially a Nonconformist opposition; there is, as a matter of fact, a considerable number of Nonconformists who are friendlily disposed towards it. I do not know whether some of your Lordships remember an attempt that was made by various leading citizens of Manchester representing the interests of the Church and of Nonconformity, who arrived at what was published at the time as the Manchester compromise, in which this granting of general facilities under certain circumstances had a place. It is an educational objection that is taken. I very much doubt whether you will find in this House, or out of it, for the matter of that, anyone qualified to speak with real authority as an educationist who will not express grave doubt as to whether this proposal can be carried through. I desire, therefore, to ask the noble Marquess opposite (Lord Londonderry) who has put to me many questions, all of which I am afraid I have not been able to answer, some because I did not think they were relevant, whether, with his considerable experience of the Board of Education, he would be able to approach this proposal in a perfectly light-hearted manner, and whether he believes that it could be carried out in the great towns, without very great difficulty.
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDONDERRY: My Lords. I may say——
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I will not trouble the noble Marquess to answer me at this stage. One assumption is sometimes made which seems to me to be rather a cool assumption. It is this, that when you grant these general facilities in a school of Nonconformists
  1250
  they will be content with one type of teaching. I cannot imagine why they should be. It may be perfectly true that Nonconformists as a rule are willing to accept as a matter of compromise undenominational teaching as the standard teaching for their children, but if you are going to allow Baptists and Methodists to give their special teaching by way of facilities in those schools I cannot see why they should refrain or be expected to refrain from doing so. I have not heard from Nonconformist bodies any intention expressed of treating extra facilities in the way it is conveniently supposed by noble Lords opposite and others they will be treated. It will not merely be a question of Cowper-Temple teaching on the one hand and Church teaching on the other.
  There are two other Amendments on the Paper which deal in a diluted form with this question. The Amendment standing in the name of the Lord Bishop of Hereford deals only with council schools in rural areas where there is no other school. That proposal is, of course, not open to a great number of the objections which can be and are advanced against the wider proposal of the noble Lord opposite. At the same time I confess that I should look forward with some dread, even in these cases, to the alteration of the existing conditions, not because the actual giving of the teaching would be difficult in these cases, but because the disturbance of the system which has existed for a considerable number of years in these districts seems to me to carry with it certain dangers, though I frankly admit, of course, that the Amendment is not open to a great many of the objections which can be advanced against the Amendment of the noble Lord.
  We have not had the advantage of hearing the noble Viscount opposite (Viscount St. Aldwyn) state his case for the different kind of facilities which he desires to give in the case of discontinued schools, but I mention the subject on this occasion because I am anxious to learn from the noble Viscount exactly what it is that he proposes to do. When a school is discontinued, I understand that he desires that the displaced Church children should have facilities

  1251
  elsewhere. When the noble Viscount speaks no doubt he will tell me whether that is intended to apply only to the children now attending the school, to the generation of children only, or whether it is intended to apply for all time to their successors, because the two things are of course, very different. If it is intended to apply to their successors, the result would be that, though the denominational school would be dead, its ghost would haunt the neighbourhood for all time. I confess I am rather puzzled to see in these circumstances in what schools the noble Viscount would propose that facilities should be offered.
  Surely it would be hardly reasonable, if there were five council schools and one voluntary school in a district, that all the council schools should be subject to the facilities upon the discontinuance of the voluntary school. There are a considerable number of areas at the present moment in which there are only council schools, and there Church children get on very well with the Cowper-Temple teaching and their Sunday schools, and that is the answer I make to the noble Viscount. There is no reason to suppose that in those areas the Church is less popular or the children less religiously attached to the Church. I cannot help thinking that the noble Viscount's fears are illusory. Your Lordships will not be surprised, after the remarks I have made, when I say that, as it stands, we are entirely unable to accept the Amendment of my noble friend opposite. I can only assume that the other Amendments by the noble Viscount and the right rev. Prelate are not likely to come before the Committee, but, at any rate, we have had the advantage of discussing them, and are able to bear in our minds the alternative possibilities connected with this problem.
  *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid he had been reluctant to offer an explanation of a proposal not before the Committee. He had desired to deal with the case in which an educational authority refused to continue a denominational school on account of a desire to improve secular teaching by amalgamating schools, or by reason of the denominational school having really become not necessary for school accommodation. The discon-
  1252
  tinuance might be due to no fault of owners or managers. In such a case he proposed that the children who were attending, or who might attend, that school if it had remained open as a denominational school should be able to obtain the denominational teaching to which they had been accustomed in some other school in the district of the authority, possibly in a council school. Certainly he would have the facility continued, it would be unreasonable to confine it to the existing school generation.
  The proposal of course differed materially from that which now occupied the attention of the Committee, and which, if carried, would make his Amendment impossible. His proposal was really automatic in its effect. If a local authority chose to continue a denominational school it would not come into effect; it would only be effective through the voluntary action of the authority, and since the Amendment of the Archbishop of Canterbury had been carried the cases in which it would operate would be few. The Amendment of Lord Balfour would open council schools all over the country to denominational teaching, a very wide proposal indeed. In the first place, was it really necessary? In a case where there was one council school and several denominational schools, was it reasonable that facilities should be granted in the council school? He listened with all attention to Lord Goschen, who seemed to apprehend a large discontinuance of denominational schools, but seemed to have forgotten the alteration made in the second clause. If that remained in the Bill his noble friend's fears would be groundless. The speech of the Undersecretary for War encouraged the hope that the alteration made in the second clause would become law, and nowadays they attached very great weight to observations made by Under-Secretaries. He had heard with great pleasure so high an authority as the noble Earl admit the possibility of the Amendment made last night becoming law.
  THE EARL OF PORTSMOUTHsaid he was showing how noble Lords opposite would stultify their own Amendments.
  *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNunderstood the noble Earl to say there was no

  1253
  necessity for the Amendment after what had been done, and his argument fell to the ground unless it was supposed that what had been done would be effective. But he would refer to a higher authority still, the Lord President of the Council, who in effect said, "If you will give up the denominational character of your schools, making them all undenominational, then the proposal might be favourably considered."
  THE EARL OF CREWE: Not quite that.
  *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYN: He went very far in that direction. But would the noble Earl take the converse? If they desired to maintain the denominational character of their schools, would he view with a favourable eye a later Amendment for preserving that denominational character? The present proposal went beyond the real necessities of the case. The practical administrative difficulties had been pointed out, and he would not refer to them beyond saying those difficulties might be removed if there were really a popular demand.
  But was there such a demand? It was now thirty-six years since the Act of 1870 was passed, forbidding denominational teaching in board schools. Millions of children of Church of England parents had been taught in those schools, and had there been any real popular movement on the part of those parents to obtain denominational teaching? He ventured to say the matter had never been heard of until the present year. During all that time the greatest advocates of denominational teaching, the Church of England, the Catholics, the Jews, had done their best to secure denominational teaching. Where? In the board schools? No. To maintain their denominational schools intact, that had been their effort. It was their effort now, not in the country schools only. They wanted to make this Bill a fair Bill to the denominations. That was the object of the Amendments placed on the Paper to Clauses 3 and 4, and to those Amendments he would give his most hearty support.
  There was something more which he was bound to say had a great influence on his own mind. Was this a practical
  1254
  proposal? Could any one of them say it really had a chance of becoming law? He did not allude to the opposition to it which had been declared by members of His Majesty's Government. They had been bound, and would be bound in the case of many other Amendments, to declare their opposition owing, no doubt, to the position taken up by their colleagues in the other House. But he hoped that some day they might change their minds on some of these points at all events. But was it likely that they would change their minds on this proposal? Was the House of Commons likely to accept such an Amendment as this?
  He did not wish to stand up before their Lordships as suggesting for a moment that they should attach too great importance to the voice of the House of Commons. A majority of the House of Commons was a very fleeting majority, as some had found out in the last two or three years; and the majority of the present House of Commons might not really represent the opinion of the people on this Bill. But he had been much struck with an observation made by Lord Balfour in moving this Amendment, that it was based on a proposal actually made to the House of Commons in 1896 and which met with no favour at all. There never was a House of Commons more favourable to denominational education than the House of 1896. Was it likely that a proposal scouted then would receive approval now? He did not think so. He was anxious for a real settlement of this burning question. He believed that the longer this controversy went on the worse it was for religion and for education too. But of this he was quite certain, that it could only be settled by reason and moderation on both sides, and so far as his humble vote was concerned he would be no party to inserting in this Bill a proposal which he believed would have no popular support, because he thought that was not the way to ensure a real and lasting settlement.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ALBANSsaid that, despite the able argument to which the Committee had just listened, he would venture to support the Amendment of Lord Balfour and to thank him for his noble utterance of the previous evening in a speech which would be long

  1255
  remembered in that House. This Bill must be considered as a whole and not only in relation to an Amendment which, although carried in that House, might be roughly treated elsewhere.
  What did they give up under this Bill? The entire control as well as management of the voluntary schools was taken over; except under Clause 4 the teachers need not be denominational; all tests so called of teachers were to be removed; no religious teaching was provided in school hours except by the Amendment of their Lordships carried a day or two ago; where religious teaching was given there was no security that the teacher would really believe what he taught; the conditions in regard to the training of teachers which had been the main cause of the excellence even of the Cowper-Temple teaching would now be altered, as so many more would be raised in colleges which had not a definite religious basis, and the council schools would henceforth lack the stimulus of the healthy rivalry of the denominational schools. When they considered the quid pro quo offered in the Bill, all that was what the quo meant.
  As to the quid, could the facilities given under Clauses 3 and 4, even coupled with the Amendment carried already in their Lordships' House, be deemed adequate by those who valued denominational education? It was because he believed the quid was not an equivalent for the quo that he looked for some root principle to help them in the national education of the future. Such a root principle he found in Lord Balfour's Amendment. He denied that the grievance affected only the country schools. He represented not merely a very large country district, but a part of what was called Greater London, with a population of 800,000 increasing at the rate of 30,000 a year. In this population a large number of parents desired denominational teaching for their children and had not been able to obtain it, because it had been wholly impossible for the building of schools to keep pace with the increase to which he referred. Was it unreasonable that those parents who directly or indirectly paid rates should ask for the facilities which would enable them
  1256
  to obtain for their children the education which they believed to be the best?
  The noble Earl the Lord President of the Council had told them that the offer of facilities in the country villages was practically of no use, because there were no people besides those of the Church of England able to take advantage of such facilities. He questioned the facts. He knew of villages where facilities had been offered and accepted by Nonconformists. And even if the fact were as alleged, was that a fair reason for refusing to allow facilities to such as were willing to use them? There was no desire on the part of the Church of England managers to use their schools for the purpose of proselytism. They were perfectly ready to give to the children of other denominations attending their schools Biblical teaching which satisfied their parents, or else afford to these parents facilities for having their children taught the religion which they held dear. Equal justice all round could only be attained on the principle of equal facilities all round.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGHthought it would be hardly courteous on his part if he refrained from saying what had been the result on his mind of the discussion. He had laid before their Lordships a proposal which he still believed was the ideal solution of the education problem, and one to which he was convinced the logic of events would sooner or later force the country. He acknowledged at once that he had not a tithe of the right to speak upon English matters that many of those who had followed him in the debate had by long-continued association with administrative affairs. The system they all desired, or to which, at any rate, they gave lip service, was one that would be fair and equal all round, a national settlement which would last at least as long as the settlement of 1870; and he was convinced a settlement of that character would not be reached unless the Government were prepared to make great changes in their Bill. He admitted that his Amendment would make a great change in the Bill. He also admitted it had not received from his own side that measure of support

  1257
  which had been given to other proposals. He was ready, if necessary, to go into the division lobby for it as an assertion of what in the abstract he believed to be right and fair. But he was prepared to withdraw it if he got any indication from Ministers that when other Amendments came to be discussed they would receive them with a slightly more open mind than they had received Amendments hitherto. At any rate, before he withdrew the Amendment he should like to hear what the noble Marquess, who was the real leader of the forces on the Opposition side, and the most rev. Prelate had to say on the situation.
  THE LORD ARCHBISHOP OF CANTERBURYsaid he shared to the full the difficulty which the noble Lord felt as to how they were really to understand their position in the present situation. At least two members of the Government had appealed to the fact that particular Amendments having been carried had qualified their action in regard to other Amendments that had been proposed. That was either a taunt which he thought undeserved, or else it was a recognition that the Amendments which had been carried were not to be, he did not say altered or modified, but to be treated hereafter as nothing at all. That argument showed that the position had been changed by the carrying of these Amendments, and if that meant anything it meant a great deal.
  He thought the Government did not adequately recognise the difficulties of the situation in which those who adhered to denominational principles would be placed if no Amendment of the kind proposed by the noble Lord was made in the Bill. In that there was nothing unfair. All that he had asked for and striven for was absolute equality of treatment all round. The President of the Board of Education had on more than one occasion called attention to the fact that, as he put it, every Nonconformist in the land was now by this Bill to have access to the kind of teaching he wanted. He maintained that that carried with it a correlative on the other side. There were other people who did not find that teaching what they wanted,
  1258
  and so far as was practicable—and of course he admitted that in many cases there might be difficulties—some adequate security, apart from the mere desire of a friendly local authority or the like, ought to be promised them that that principle was going to be recognised. Once let them understand that the principle was going to be recognised that the man eagerly keen about denominational teaching for his children was so far as was in any way practicable to have access to that teaching, then he felt it came to a matter of degree how that was arranged. But unless that principle was recognised it was unfair to push them forwards and to maintain that fairness was being meted out all round.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: My Lords, I rise only because my noble friend Lord Balfour made an appeal to me as well as to the noble Marquess opposite. I do not desire to prolong the discussion. As to the merits of the Amendment before the Committee, I have already expressed my own views, and those views remain unchanged. What I think we, on this side, have to consider is our position in regard to this Amendment after the debate which has taken place. To my mind what should weigh with us most is the question of the amount of authority with which this Amendment would go down to the House of Commons. Supposing we were to carry it this evening after the debate to which we have listened, we might carry the Amendment, but it is obvious that we should carry it by a much diminished majority in view of the opinions expressed by some of those with whom we are in the habit of acting, and for whose opinions we have the most sincere respect. In these circumstances it would be idle to expect that the vote of this House would ultimately prevail, and I for one should be sorry to encourage your Lordships to take part in what might prove to be a mere parade movement. In these circumstances, if my opinion is desired, it is that my noble friend would do well not to press his Amendment to a division. I say that, feeling that he has called the attention of the Committee to a very serious imperfection of the Bill, and with

  1259
  the hope that an attempt will be made, and that His Majesty's Government will assist us in the endeavour, at a future stage, to do something, at all events, to remedy that defect.
  THE LORD PRIVY SEAL (The Marquess of RIPON): My Lords, I think my noble friend who has just sat down has given very discreet advice to my noble friend Lord Balfour of Burleigh. The most rev. Primate has again appeared to me to have a fear in his mind that we shall take some debating objection to future Amendments. I beg to reassure the most rev. Primate that we shall do nothing of the kind. Nothing which you have done will be quoted against you in that respect; of that the most rev. Primate may be quite sure. Lord Balfour asked me whether His Majesty's Government thought this Bill a fair Bill. Yes, my Lords, we do think it a fair Bill. Then we are asked what we are going to do about future Amendments. We shall consider them when they are brought forward; we shall discuss them when they are brought forward; and they shall receive our consideration. I cannot give, and I do not give, any pledge as to the mode in which we will deal with them here or elsewhere, but we shall treat the Amendments with the respect and attention which is due to them.
  *LORD BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH: In the circumstances I ask leave to withdraw my Amendment.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF HEREFORDsaid that in speaking on the Amendment of Lord Balfour of Burleigh he had explained why he could not agree to anything like a universal right of entry into all schools, whether in rural or in urban areas. At the beginning of this controversy his judgment was in favour of giving ordinary two-day facilities in all schools wherever situated, but on construing that into what he might call the language of administration he had been driven to the conclusion that it would be a practical
  1260
  impossibility, without a great deal of administrative confusion at all events, to claim facilities in all schools in all districts. He therefore desired to limit the claim to country districts in which, as a rule, there was only one school in each parish, and consequently only one school within reach of the children of the parish. Thus the Amendment he proposed to move was to insert after the word "schoolhouse" the words—
  "Or if in any parish in a rural area there is only one public elementary school provided for the children of the parish, and the parents of a reasonable number of children have required such facilities, the local education."
  In rural parishes, as a rule, there was only one school within reach of the children of the parish. In some cases, although the schools had been denominational schools, they had, owing to local causes, been transferred to school boards, or a board school had been erected. Under the changed circumstances these schools would be in all educational respects exactly like the transferred schools; the parishes would be in exactly the same position and of the same character as the neighbouring parishes in which there would, be transferred schools with facilities, and he could see no reason why the two classes of schools should be treated differently in the future. No difficulty would arise in administration, and in most cases the gift of the facilities would be agreeable to all parties. He could not see any vital objection to the proposal, nor would the principle of equal justice be in any way interfered with, and it was desirable, wherever practicable, to give these facilities under the new system so as to provide equality of opportunity and to take away the sense of grievance to as large an extent as possible. In many matters of legislation the conditions of the towns overshadowed those of the country; the people in rural districts were sometimes overlooked, and their needs, conditions, and requirements not adequately considered. Wherever it could be shown that there was no opportunity for parents to obtain equal facilities with others, that good administration would not be interfered with, and that the concession would not cause confusion in the new system, he thought the principle for which his Amendment

  1261
  contended ought to be applied. He begged to move.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 8, after the word 'school-house,' to insert the words 'or if in any parish in a rural area there is only one public elementary school provided for the children of the parish, and the parents of a reasonable number of children have required such facilities, the local.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
  THE MARQUESS OF LONDON-DERRYregretted that the Committee had not had the opportunity of seeing the Amendment in print before being asked to discuss it. As far as he understood it, the idea of the right rev. Prelate was to give the parents of the children in the schools, where difficulty arose, an opportunity of heaving that religious instruction which they desired. If it were clearly shown that the parents were to have the instruction they desired, independently of other difficulties, speaking for himself—he could not pledge his noble friends on the subject—he saw no reason why the Amendment should not be accepted.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid that everyone must be in sympathy with the idea underlying the Amendment. Doubtless all their Lordships would wish that in establishing a national system there should be as much consideration as possible shown for those who did not fit into it, so that provided the system were really national, there might be those alleviations to meet the real desires of any substantial section of the community. There was not much substance in the complaint that the Amendment was not in print, as it was substantially the same as an Amendment of which notice had been given, except that it was limited to rural areas, and instead of taking the area in general the definite expression of a "parish" was now used. On a previous occasion the Lord President of the Council had pointed out that there was no special area for school provision. Formerly the parish was prima facie the area, but since the county councils had had charge of the work the areas had been whatever the county councils thought suitable in their individual districts, and if the Amendment was to be adopted it would be much more convenient to
  1262
  have a definite term which did not leave the door open to disputes afterwards. In rural districts, as a rule, the parish corresponded very fairly with the local possibilities of attendance at school. In principle there was no more reason why a person in a rural district should have these facilities than a person in an urban district who had no school available. The object was to ask for a little, and not complicate the matter by wider difficulties.
  He desired to refer to one or two practical difficulties in the way of giving effect to the proposal before the Committee. The proposal was that if the parents of a reasonable number of children in a rural district wished for facilities they should have a right to use the school on two mornings a week in the same way as if it were a transferred school. With the best intentions in the world very serious difficulties would be found in working the provision, even in the case of transferred schools. For instance, in many parishes in Lincolnshire, where a considerable majority of the population were Wesleyans, although the school was a Church school, there would be general Bible teaching given for the school as a whole, and there would be the difficulty of providing distinctive teaching on two mornings a week for perhaps less than one half of the children. Even in those village schools where a separate class room was provided for the infants it would be almost impossible to have two classes going on at the same time in the room devoted to the older children. Therefore, if this proposal was to be worked, whether for the transferred schools or on the extended scale now suggested, it could only be done with administrative comfort by putting the whole building, on the mornings set apart for facilities for teaching, at the disposal of those who desired that teaching, and making the school, so far as the rest of the scholars were concerned, a secular school, commencing at half-past nine. The effect would then be that the community would have the use of the school for general Bible teaching on three mornings in the week, while on two mornings the building would be entirely at the disposal of those for whom the facilities

  1263
  were granted. It was not likely that in a village there would be two competing sets of persons wanting denominational instruction. It should be remembered that when all the class rooms were occupied, the mere fact of withdrawing a few scholars from each class for special instruction did not make a classroom available, as the residue of each class would still be occupying the classroom, so that in practice the scheme would have to be carried out in some other way. It would be the invasion—he did not say the repeal—of the Cowper-Temple clause, carried one step further than the perfectly fair invasion made in effecting the transfer from schools which had been wholly denominational to schools which in future were to be under public management. It would, however, be better if the clause were made permissive instead of compulsory. Except where the Cowper-Temple clause was suspended in the case of transferred schools for those who had these rights on two mornings in the week, it was illegal for an authority to permit any religious instruction other than Cowper-Temple instruction during school hours. Parliament, of course, could permit it, and many local authorities, if a reasonable case were made out, would be willing to grant these facilities if they had the power and were able to look at all the circumstances, whereas if the clause were compulsory there might be great difficulties. He was trying to speak as far as possible in support of the idea of the right rev. Prelate, being anxious, provided there was a determination on the part of the Committee frankly to accept a national public system for all the schools, to do all that could consistently be done to make the transition easy and to meet the feelings and wishes of those who more or less stood out from the national system. But it was only fair on his part to say that that wish must go hand in hand with an honest and frank recognition on the other side of the municipal character of the teacher of the future and his absolute immunity from all tests. He had noticed once or twice an attempt to turn the immunity from all tests into a mere conscience clause for the teacher. If there was any attempt to make it prima facie the duty of the teacher to
  1264
  give this teaching, unless he pleaded conscientious objections, it would be very difficult, in fact impossible, for himself and others to try to meet the right rev. Prelate and his supporters in a friendly way.
  *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNsaid that in asking far the sympathetic consideration of His Majesty's Government for this Amendment he naturally had a little parental prejudice in favour of his own proposal, but he did desire that some recognition should be given in the Bill of the extreme hardship that the suppression of facilities for denominational teaching might be to not a few parents in areas where there was only one school. He had attempted to meet the difficulty in one way, although his Amendment did not go so far as that of the right rev. Prelate, and he would be glad to hear the views of other right rev. Prelates who had intimate experience of these small country schools, and could, therefore, speak with real knowledge. Personally, he did not see why the Amendment should be confined to rural areas. The hardship would, generally speaking, undoubtedly be greater in the rural areas, but it might also occur in some districts in towns. His object in rising, however, was not to go into the subject at length, but to ask the noble Earl to afford reasonable consideration to the hard cases which might arise.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURYagreed that the Amendment ought to go beyond what were called rural areas. Personally, he did not know what a rural area was technically, and would like to be officially informed. But there were a number of small country towns, of 1,000, 2,000, or 3,000 inhabitants, which certainly deserved the relief given by this clause, and if any relief were given at all they were just the places where it was wanted. They did not want a second school or rival schools, but they did desire fair conditions so that those who were really the bulk of the population could have access on week-days as well as on Sundays to the teaching they were anxious to receive. Reference had been made to the lack of class rooms and the word "pandemonium" had been used. He had never been able to see the force

  1265
  of that argument. Had noble Lords never heard of parish rooms and church rooms in the villages? Up to recently it was the constant habit of the clergy to take their children across to the church and give instruction, and there were plenty of places, dissenting chapels among them, where such teaching could be given. He hoped their Lordships would not allow that futile objection to be raised again.
  *LORD COURTNEYsaid they all must feel that there were difficulties to be surmounted in the transition about to be made, and unless they were fairly faced with a view to their solution Parliament might at the end discover that the administrative difficulties involved in the proposal of Lord Balfour of Burleigh would somehow or other have to be surmounted, and that, like many other men, the noble Lord had only been speaking a little before his time. The speeches which caused that Amendment to be withdrawn were eminently dilatory speeches, simply pleading the difficulties of the subject, and admitting that if circumstances compelled some similar recommendation would have to be faced. The present proposal was of a very simple character, and he would deprecate any attempt to extend it. The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury thought the principle might be applied elsewhere. No doubt it might. The noble Lord Viscount St. Aldwyn had said there were many urban districts in which the same difficulty would arise, and that there was no reason why the principle should not be applied there. But surely this was a question of practical action, and the Committeee ought to regard what they could do on a modest scale. If they could get the principle involved in this proposal recognised they should hail it, even though it did not meet all the hard cases that might arise. The proposal was that in single school districts in rural areas facilities should be afforded to minorities in such schools. He was one of those who had voted with a perfectly clear conscience against the amendment of Lord Heneage, not because he was opposed to recognising the value of religious educaion, but because he thought it better to leave the local authority to determine, as in the past,
  1266
  what the character of the education should be. If it was desired that religious instruction should form part of the curriculum of the schools, the best way to secure that end was not to impose the duty upon the local authority, but to convert the electors, and so bring about a change in those few cases where religious instruction was not provided for. Although he strongly supported the undenominational principle as the normal principle, he would always have great tenderness for the schools of minorities, and, as far as possible, for the minorities in schools. The schools of minorities were protected in Clause 4; the minorities in the transferred schools were protected under Clause 3; but the minorities in the existing schools which would be side by side with the transferred schools, and which, in a few years, would cease to be distinguished from them, their separate origins being lost—the minorities in such schools in single school districts might be treated with the same regard as the minorities in the transferred schools, and without any greater administrative difficulty than was involved in the treatment proposed to be given to the transferred schools. In many parishes side by side in Wales, and as the right rev. Prelate of Hereford had shown, in the Marches of Wales, where the population was of exactly the same character, there were in some, board schools and in others not, the accidental action of the resident landed proprietor in many cases having caused the difference. In Cornwall the same thing occurred. The education demanded both by the majority and by the minority would be of exactly the same character in the different parishes, but they would be arbitrarily distinguished under the Bill as it stood. The exact words to be inserted might possibly require more consideration, but he thought the idea itself embodied in the Amendment might be fairly adopted as something which would satisfy many excited feelings in the rural districts, and as a recognition of the principle of just treatment all round which had been contended for, and which he, personally, gladly admitted ought to be conceded.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYthanked noble Lords for their interesting

  1267
  and conciliatory speeches, and reechoed their wish for the considerate treatment of minorities. Whatever the majority in a school might be, whether Cowper-Temple or Church, he held that the minority ought to be treated with great consideration, and he believed it would be found when they reached Clause 4 that noble Lords on that side would be anxious to treat with the utmost consideration in their power, limited only by what was feasible and practicable, the rights of Nonconformist minorities in denominational schools. His object in rising, however, was to intimate that those for whom he spoke would be willing to support the Amendment before the Committee, though he intended to move a slight addition to it. They would do so with the more confidence because it was clear that they had the sympathy, not only of such authorities as Lord Stanley of Alderley and Lord Courtney, but also of the Minister for Education himself. In October, 1903, Mr. Birrell, before he joined the Government—but, of course, that would make no difference —published in the Independent Review an article in which he discussed the possibility of arriving at some settlement of the education difficulty. The right hon. Gentleman spoke of the great obstacle presented by the existing prejudices— how on the one side there was the desire to maintain the Cowper-Temple clause, and on the other a desire to have specific denominational teaching—which was precisely to point the Committee had been discussing—and said that such an arrangement would be possible if all the schools were placed under local control and if facilities were granted. He then went on to say—
  "There still remains the question as to the nature of the religion to be taught in all the schools. Here the parents really must, whether they like it or not, conquer their shyness and make their first appearance in this ancient and horrid controversy, and tell us, when they send Tom and Jane to school, whether they wish them to receive any, and, if any, what religious instruction."
  The Committee should note particularly the next words—
  "There is no chance of the multiplication of strange parental religions. We are not an imaginative people, Jews, Roman Catholics, Anglicans, and Dissenters in a lump, will usually
  1268
  exhaust the list. The great body of Dissenters will be found ready to accept the same broad simple Bible teaching which for the most part characterises board school Christianity."
  It was perfectly clear that Mr. Birrell contemplated only four distinct varieties —Jews, Roman Catholics, Anglicans and Dissenters—and even those four would not present themselves in every case; so that it was evidently the view of the right hon. Gentleman that the solution dd not present any real difficulty. Within the last few days he had received from a clergyman who had taken a great part in education in New South Wales, and who was under the impression that Lord Heneage's Amendment to Clause 1 was in the direction of facilities, a letter in these terms—
  "The principle of this Amendment obtains in New South Wales, one of the most democratic and undenominational communities in the world. For twenty odd years, week in, week out, I have taught in the State schools there, and most of the time I have been on the Church Council which controls Church teaching in those schools. My own experience as a teacher, and as one of those who control such teaching, is that there had never been the slightest difficulty in working a proposal like Lord Heneage's. Its vagueness is its strength. At present the headmaster in the school in my parish is a Roman Catholic, and the second master is a Wesleyan; they both give excellent general religious teaching themselves, and they support my giving denominational teaching."
  That was an absolute confirmation of the forecast of the Minister for Education in the Independent Review, that these facilities in working would present no difficulties whatever. The present Amendment sought to apply the principle only in a particular and special case, namely, where a child had no alternative but to go to a particular school. All who supported Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Amendment and many who did not would support the present proposal, which dealt with the case of a child who was compelled to go to one school, and one school only, where if the religious teaching was not satisfactory to the parent the child had either to be withdrawn altogether from religious instruction or have instruction of which the parent did not approve. It was the single school area difficulty, and he frankly admitted that they on that side of the House had always felt that that from their point of view was the most difficult part of the education question with which

  1269
  they had to deal. Nothing could be more eminently fair than the right rev. Prelate's proposal, but it imposed a limitation by which its operation would be confined to rural districts. He did not think that the right rev. Prelate could really sustain the distinction between rural and urban, and therefore he (the Marquess of Salisbury) would move slightly to modify the Amendment by striking out the words "parish in a rural area" for the purpose of inserting the word "district," with a consequential Amendment substituting the word "district" for the word "parish" later on in the Amendment. The effect of the change would be, not to enlarge the Amendment beyond the single school areas, not to extend it beyond the cases where a child had no alternative, but so far to enlarge the Amendment that it would apply to urban as well as rural districts.
  Amendment moved to the proposed Amendment—
  "To leave out the words "parish in a rural area," and insert the word "district."—(The Marquess of Salisbury).
  *LORD BELHAVEN AND STENTONpointed out that there might be cases in which there were two schools of a similar kind—two church schools or two council schools—and the child would have no alternative but to go to one of those, and in neither case would the instruction be of the kind desired by its parents; he suggested, therefore, that instead of the words "one public elementary school" there should be substituted the words "schools of a single class."
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I am sorry to have to suggest a further slight complication with regard to the wording of this Amendment, but the words "provided for the children of the parish" would probably not meet what is intended by the right rev. Prelate. If those words remain in the Amendment, somebody would have to find out whether the particular school was provided for the children of the parish, whereas what the right rev. Prelate means is that there is only one school for the children to attend. Without expressing any
  1270
  views as to the merits of the Amendment, I think the right rev. Prelate would be wise to omit those words.
  This Amendment in its original form is no doubt free from many of the objections to which Lord Balfour of Burleigh's proposal was open. It is no doubt true that in a considerable number of cases a difficulty might arise, and as we think certainly would arise, in the possibility of several different kinds of religious teaching being required, whereas in the transferred schools only one kind of facilities would be demanded. In treating this proposal as the converse of the proposition in our Bill, Lord Courtney forgot that under the right rev. Prelate's Amendment there was nothing to prevent any number of different kinds of facilities being asked for. I quite admit that there is a good deal to be said for this Amendment, and if the right rev. Prelate were right in supposing that in all cases where it would be likely to apply it would be welcomed by the local authorities, criticism of it would, no doubt, be made much more difficult. But I am by no means convinced that that would be the case. The right rev. Prelate doubtless speaks with perfect knowledge of his own diocese, and he may know cases in which the matter could be arranged without friction. But, on the other hand, I was greatly impressed by what fell from the Duke of Devon-shire, in his speech on the general question, that, having regard to the fact that the denominational character of a great number of schools is going to be preserved, it is a very serious step indeed to tamper with the Cowper-Temple clause, and I confess that all the arguments which have been used have only convinced me that such a step should only be taken, if taken at all, with the most anxious consideration and also with a knowledge of what the practical effect would be.
  The right rev. Prelate the Bishop of Salisbury, in speaking of the facilities, used a phrase which rather surprised me. Talking about the difficulty of accommodation in the school, he said that there was the parish room or a room at the church. But as I read the Bill, these facilities are to be given by teachers in school hours, and I see

  1271
  a series of Amendments on the Paper, with very formidable names attached, names which I imagine command a majority of your Lordship's House, making attendance at the school building during those hours compulsory. Therefore, I shall watch with interest to see what line the right rev. Prelate takes when we come to Clause 7, if he is in favour of facilities teaching being given outside the school house.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF SALISBURY: I am quite in favour of it whenever it is desired by the local authority.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The Marquess of Salisbury approaches the question from a somewhat different point of view. He has proposed an Amendment to strike out the words which confine the right rev. Prelate's proposition to council schools in single school areas.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: In rural areas.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: In practice, in rural areas.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALSBURY: The only change I propose is in effect to include urban as well as rural; I do not propose to change the single school area.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: If the noble Marquess can tell me what are single school areas in urban districts I shall be very much obliged to him, because I honestly confess that I do not understand what he means. If he simply means the technical difference between an urban area and a rural area there may possibly be areas of urban district councils in which this state of things obtains. I very much doubt it, but there may be. If, however, the noble Marquess means that he wishes this provision to apply to all parts of large towns in which children may not have convenient access to denominational schools, I think he is undertaking an absolutely impossible task. This single school question has nothing to do with areas; it simply depends upon the point of view of the child. Everybody knows, particularly in these days of motor omnibuses, that the existence of
  1272
  a single crossing may make a school inaccessible to a particular child, and that child, if it is surrounded by such crossings, is in a single school area. If the noble Marquess imagines that by some machinery or other he can apply this provision to children so situated, I think he is undertaking a task beyond his powers or anybody else's powers of draughtmanship.
  Consequently, I am sorry we are not able to accept the Amendment of the right rev. Prelate. We have listened with care and respect to the arguments in its favour, and we will certainly give the subject our careful consideration. But we are greatly impressed by the practical difficulty of touching the question at all, and if the right rev. Prelate presses his Amendment, although we are not disposed to put the Committee to the trouble of a division, I am afraid that we must challenge the decision of the Committee if it should be in his favour. As regards the proposed addition of the noble Marquess we should certainly have to divide the Committee against it.
  *VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid there were two or three questions he would like to put to the noble Earl. Had the parent a right to have his child instructed in the religion in which he believed or had he not? Personally, he would have thought that liberty required that he should enjoy that right, but that right was exactly what the Bill refused, and so far as it went, the object of the Amendment was to secure that right. In the county council provided schools dealt with by this Amendment undenominational religion was being taught. If the parents demanded a right of entry to have their children taught the religion in which they themselves believed, not only was the right denied to them, but in what had been denominational schools undenominational religion was being forced upon them against their will. How could the noble Earl reconcile that kind of dealing with the ordinary principles of liberty and justice? That was all the advocates of this Amendment asked for, and unless it could be shown that it was consistent with liberty and justice to force a parent to send his child

  1273
  to a school to be taught a religion in which he did not believe, he did not see how the Government could refuse to accept the Amendment.
  Then there was another question. From beginning to end in this discussion it had been laid down by Nonconformist organs that it was unjust to make a person pay for a religious teaching of which he did not approve. Nonconformists one and all had again and again affirmed that the State had nothing to do with religion, and their objection to the Acts of 1902 and 1870 and to some of the provisions of the present Bill was that the State was interfering in religious matters. The Bill took one form of religious instruction, namely undenominationalism; it imposed that on every school, and it made those who did not approve of it pay for it. Not only so, but it forbade the support from State money of any other form of religious teaching. It introduced undenominational teaching at the expense of the State, while it hampered, if it did not entirely forbid, any other form of religious teaching. He thought it was impossible to deny that statement. He quite agreed that this undenominational instruction was to all intents and purposes the religious instruction which Nonconformists desired. He was glad that they should have it, and he would help them to have it. But just as he was willing to help them to have what they wanted, on the same principle he asked that others should have what they wanted. Undenominational teaching was a form of religious instruction which did not suit the Church of England or the Roman Catholics. It no doubt was very inconvenient from the Nonconformist's point of view that that kind of instruction did not suit Anglicans and Roman Catholics, but the fact remained, and the only argument which justified the system supported by the present Bill would equally justify a Church of England majority in imposing the Church of England Catechism on all schools, or a Roman Catholic majority in imposing their own teaching in a similar manner. The Bill violated the most fundamental principles of religious liberty. It violated every principle for which Nonconformists had fought in the past. There was only one principle upon
  1274
  which the religious question could be solved, viz., an impartial attitude towards all religious opinions and denominations alike, which was exactly what this Bill did not set up. There might have been good reasons why Lord Balfour of Burleigh's Amendment should not be pressed at this stage of the Bill, though there were many schools in which children of Church of England parents were obliged to go to council schools, and it was extremely unjust that in those cases they should not be able to got such religious teaching as they required. When the Committee reached Clauses 4 and 5, he hoped their Lord ships would amend them in such a way as to secure denominational teaching for those who wished to have it, and also to preserve the atmosphere of the school; but if the religious question was to be solved to the satisfaction of the whole country it could be only by holding the balance oven between those who wished for denominational teaching and those who desired undenominational teaching. No one wished more devoutly than he did to get rid of the religious difficulty. He desired to see education made efficient, but he also wished real justice to be afforded in the matter of religious education, and unless their Lordships utilised the present Bill to do real justice and give equal treatment as between undenominational and denominational teaching, and much more if they forced upon the country a Bill which all those who cared for denominational teaching felt was doing them a most grievous injustice, they would be not promoting peace, but inaugurating a time of religious war of which we should not see the end for many a year. They would be doing in England exactly what had occurred in Holland, where there had been a most bitter warfare exactly on these lines, with the result that in the end the State had had to do justice to the denominational schools, and that was what, if justice were not done on the present occasion, Parliament would sooner or later be compelled to do.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: As the noble discount made a direct appeal to me I am obliged to answer him without delay. He asks me whether in our opinion parents have a right to have their children taught the religion in which they

  1275
  themselves believe. My reply is a very simple one. If it is a question of withdrawing children from religious instruction which their parents do not wish them to have, my answer is "yes." If it is a question of providing that instruction for them, my answer is "no."
  *VISCOUNT HALIFAX: May I remind the noble Earl that in regard to these Amendments it has not been a question of providing, but of allowing the parents to provide for themselves?
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYdesired to make an appeal to the right rev. Prelate and the noble Marquess. The Government could not at this moment accept the Amendment, but if it were put it would no doubt be carried by a large majority, and the noble Earl in charge of the Bill would simply record his dissent. Many Members on that side of the House were very anxious that something practical should come out of the discussion, and, in spite of the present disinclination of the Government to accept the Amendment on account of the difficulties involved, he thought something might be gained if the Amendment was withdrawn in order that the matter might be considered before the Report Stage. In logic doubtless the principle involved in the Amendment might be carried out so far as to cover the whole country, but everyone could see the difference between taking a small step to meet a grievance which was emphasised locally and applying the principle universally. If they had on the Paper carefully thought out words applying to rural districts, and if the proposal were supported largely, there would at any rate be a chance of getting something. If the clause were made permissive, it would overcome some of the objections and possibly abolish the hostility of the local authorities. In any case he felt that they had a chance of getting something if the matter were not pressed now and carried by a mere division with the dissent of the Government.
  LORD HENEAGEhoped the noble Marquess on the front Opposition Bench would withdraw the Amendment to the Amendment. They ought not to forget
  1276
  the side from which the Amendment had come, and if they could get it inserted in the Bill it would be of great advantage in single school areas.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. ASAPHsaid that coming from Wales, where out of 677 Church of England schools 553 were in rural areas, he thought he could make an appeal with some interest in the matter. The Marquess of Salisbury had quoted Mr. Birrell's opinion, and he could quote the not less influential testimony of the concordat to which the President of the Board of Trade, Mr. Lloyd-George, gave his assent in 1903, one of the terms of which was that there should be facilities in both provided and non-provided schools. The difficulty which had been feared with regard to introducing these facilities in provided schools and the disturbances it would cause had most distinctly not been experienced in Wales, and if they had not been felt in Wales he failed to see why they should be in England.
  *THE MARQUESS OF LANSDOWNE: I hope the right rev. Prelate will adhere to his Amendment as it stands; and my noble friend behind me is quite ready to withdraw his proposed addition. The important question is not so much the precise language in which the Amendment is couched as the principle which underlies it, and upon that principle we on this side are entirely agreed. Indeed, the noble Earl, the Lord President of the Council, has quite frankly admitted the grievance with which we desire to deal but, like many others, when he arrives at the Cowper-Temple clause he shudders on the brink and feels unable to move any further. But we have not that feeling on this side of the Committee. What we desire is the recognition of the principle for which we have contended through these discussions. That principle is that when a substantial minority of the parents of the children are dissatisfied with the religious instruction given in one of these schools, and those children are unable to obtain the desired kind of religious instruction at another easily accessible school, the facilities suggested should be given. The right rev. Prelate's Amendment seems to

  1277
  me to enforce that principle. If the question as between urban and rural areas should require further consideration it could be easily given to it hereafter. I hope the right rev. Prelate will take the sense of the Committee on what I conceive to be the principle underlying his Amendment.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYasked leave to withdraw his Amendment.
  Amendment to the proposed Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORDsaid the effect of the Amendment standing on the Paper in the name of Lord Balfour of Burleigh would extend the ordinary facilities from two days to five days in the week. He desired to make it quite clear that if the present Amendment were accepted the question whether the facilities should be for two days or for five would still be open for discussion.
  LORD JOICEYsaid it was the principle contained in the Amendment which induced the Government to oppose it, and he could quite understand their hesitation. The principle was for the first time to admit, in regard to council schools, the right of entry on the part of those who wished to have denominational teaching. If that principle were admitted much difficulty would be caused in those localities where hitherto they had always objected to it. He fully recognised the necessity for, and had always been in favour of, religious teaching, but he believed that by proceeding in the manner now proposed they would do great harm to the cause of religious education which they all desired to promote. He had had some experience, being a considerable owner of voluntary schools, but he had never had any difficulty at all in regard to the religious question. If, however, they were to attempt to force denominational teaching upon those schools where Cowper-Temple teaching had been given they would probably arouse a very strong feeling against religious education altogether. He appealed to the Government not to accept the Amendment, because he was convinced that the damage it would do to the cause of
  1278
  religious education was greater than any advantage that could be derived.
  On Question, the House was cleared for a division, but the Amendment on being put a second time was agreed to.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 8, to leave out the word 'that.'"—(The Lord Bishop of Hereford.)
  Amendment agreed to.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAM,in moving to insert words securing that the religious instruction given should be for not less than a clear half-hour each morning, said it was lamentable that there should be any specific requirements made upon constituted authorities, but where they were made it was better that they should be such as would be effective. His own experience and the views of those whom he had consulted convinced him that if there was to be any effective religious instruction permanently given there must be sufficient time secured for the giving of that instruction, and there was a danger lest they should rest content with having in a nominal manner secured religious instruction, while at the same time they had left it possible so to scamp the time allotted to that instruction as to reduce it to something of no value at all. He feared that there was already a considerable body of opinion tending to show that religious instruction was in danger of being ousted, and his Amendment was simply to secure that where the giving of religious instruction was obligatory the allotting of adequate space to it should also be obligatory. His proposal that there should be a clear half-hour every day was based on the practice generally existing of marking the registers three-quarters of an hour after the opening of the school, and if it was provided that the space allotted should be not less than half an hour he thought they would secure what was necessary.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 11, after the word 'instruction,' to insert 'for not less than a clear half hour each morning.' "—(The Lord Bishop of Birmingham.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: We have always stated our desire that the facilities offered under our Bill should be of a genuine and real character, and if the right rev. Prelate thinks that the insertion of these words would ensure that to a greater extent than is done by the Bill as it stands we have no objection to their insertion. That is to say, that on each of the two mornings on which facilities are granted they should last for not less than a clear half-hour.
  *VISCOUNT ST. ALDWYNtook it that the provision meant that the instruction should be given on week day mornings. The words in the Bill did not say week day mornings, and he wished it to be perfecly clear, so that it should not be open to any authority to say that Sunday morning was one of the mornings on which facilities were given.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: The point put by the noble Viscount had not occurred to any of us, but I think on consideration he will see that it is exceedingly unlikely to happen. The whole matter is a question of arrangement between the two parties, and it is hardly conceivable that the managers of a denominational school would leave the point open.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYpointed out that neither Saturday nor Sunday could count, because the school was under the management of the local authority only during proper school time.
  On Question, Amendment agreed to.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORD, in the absence of Lord Balfour of Burleigh, moved to leave out, from the word "instruction" to the end of sub-section (1.) He said the effect of the Amendment would be that where facilities were allowed they should not be restricted to two mornings in the week. The restriction was a survival from a state of things which had been modified or abolished by this Bill. It might have been reasonable to limit facilities so long as they, of necessity, brought any strain on the working of the school or involved any expenditure on the part of the local
  1280
  education authority. But when the facilities involved no cost, at all except to those who chose to avail themselves of them the reason for the limitation disappeared. Therefore, on the grounds of simplicity and consistency, and of getting rid of an irksome and unnecessary restriction, he urged the adoption of the Amendment. Moreover, there were many in the Church of England and among the Roman Catholics who would demur to the conception that religious instruction was capable of being divided into two parts, as though they could have religious instruction of one character on three days and of another character on two, and then regard the two parts put together as constituting such an organic and complete scheme as they believed to be embodied in the Christian faith. He begged to move.
  Amendment moved—
  "In page 3, line 11, to leave out from the word 'instruction' to the end of sub-section (1).'"—(The Lord Bishop of Oxford.)
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I hope the right rev. Prelate will not press this Amendment. It would obviously have the effect of turning a great number of these schools back into purely denominational schools, and on that ground it is impossible for us to accept it. What happens in a very large number of ordinarily conducted Church schools at the present time is that there are two days of distinctively Church teaching and three days of what is practically undenominational teaching, and it was on that practice that we largely founded our belief that the provision which we have made in Clause 3 would be acceptable to a great number of Churchmen. But if the right rev. Prelate and the Committee mean to turn these schools into something like "four-fifths" schools, they will really make such a breach in the Bill as to alter its whole character. Therefore, I hope the right rev. Prelate on consideration will be disposed not to press the Amendment. We have frankly admitted that we do not desire these schools to be distinctly denominational, and if they were to remain so there would be no object in including them in the Bill at all. Therefore it is utterly impossible for us to accept the Amendment.
  LORD CLIFFORD OF CHUDLEIGH,who had a similar Amendment on the Paper, pointed out that there were a large number of small schools which would come under this arrangement but were not included at present under Clause 4; and in these schools as a result of the restriction the religious instruction would be given on two days in the week, but on the other days the greater part of the children would be taken away altogether, because there would be a very small minority and in some cases none at all to whom Cowper-Temple teaching would be given. Therefore, if those schools were not included in Clause 4 the effect of the provision would be to restrict all religious education in those schools to two days in the week. On that ground he hoped the Amendment now before the Committee would be supported.
  THE LORD BISHOP OF ST. DAVIDSsaid there was a general impression that the concluding portion of this clause when first introduced did not confine the facilities to two mornings in the week as it now stood in the Bill. He directed special attention to the words—
  "The mornings fixed by the local education authority shall be the name mornings in the week for all those children."
  He thought the introduction of those words in the other House was very unfortunate and restricted materially the very slight value which the ordinary facilities would, in any case, have. The Minister for Education had admitted that if it could be shown that there was any incongruity between the teaching on the three days in the week and the special teaching on the two days, there would be a serious grievance. There were many varieties of Cowper-Temple teaching. Some were good, some very good; some were bad, some very bad. Therefore, on the argument of the Minister for Education there would be a serious grievance if there was no protection against the introduction into transferred voluntary schools now belonging to the Church of that very bad type of Cowper-Temple teaching. He therefore hoped that the Committee would support the Amendment.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I think the right rev. Prelate has misunderstood
  1282
  the meaning of the last line of the clause as it stands in the Bill. When the Bill was first introduced it was undoubtedly the case that two mornings a week would be set aside for this special religious instruction, and that it would not be given at all on the other three days. But it was pointed out in another place that it might not be possible for all the children to receive it on those two days, that there might be such a large number of children desirous of receiving this special instruction that it would be exceedingly difficult to take them all on two fixed days of the week. Therefore my right hon. friend introduced these words so as to secure that each child should receive instruction on two days if it was found that the limitation to two particular days caused such inconvenience. Then the right rev. Prelate expresses a fear that Cowper-Temple teaching of the bad kind, as he calls it, might be given on the other three days. I must call his attention to sub-section (5) of Clause 2 where he will see that one of the conditions which owners of schools to be transferred are able to make is that the authorities shall give an undertaking to give religious instruction which does not conflict with Section 14 of the Elementary Education Act, 1870. I am sure it will case the right rev. Prelate's mind to know that that section makes it possible for a transferring body of owners to insist upon a particular kind of Cowper-Temple instruction being given; that is to say, they can present a syllabus to the local authority and make its acceptance for the three days teaching part of their bargain.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF OXFORDasked whether, at a later stage of the Bill, the Government would introduce words into sub-section (5) of Clause 2 to make the assurance which the noble Earl had just given quite clear.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: It is quite clear now.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYwas much surprised that the noble Earl should say it was quite clear, because all that the sub-section said was that the owners might bargain that the local

  1283
  education authority should give Cowper-Temple teaching. There was no provision that the owners might bargain for a particular kind of Cowper-Temple teaching.
  LORD PITZMAURICE: A syllabus.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid there was no mention of a syllabus. The sub-section simply provided that the owners might bargain with the local authority to have Cowper-Temple teaching of some sort. No doubt the noble Earl meant that it was the intention of the Government that it should be able to bargain for a syllabus.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I maintain that it is carried out.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURYsaid it was very unfortunate that in these debates they were denied the assistance of the legal adviser of His Majesty's Government. One would have expected to see the Lord Chancellor present to give his views on these very difficult legal points, but doubtless the noble and learned Lord was absent for very good reasons. In his absence he ventured to suggest that the words did not go so far as the noble Earl had said, and he asked whether, if on inquiry he found that was the case, he would take care at a future stage to have words inserted to carry out that view.
  The point with which the Committee had been dealing was the difficulty which arose from the fact that, if only two days were set apart for special religious instruction, there might be given on the other three days religious instruction inconsistent, with that which had been given on the other two. But there was also to be considered the fact that those who bargained with the local education authority were not free to arrange the classes and the times so as to suit the various children requiring the special instruction. The noble Earl had stated that the latter words of the clause were introduced to meet that difficulty, and that under these circumstances it would be perfectly possible, where schools were very large, for the two days to be so allotted that one class might be taken on one day and another class on another.
  1284
  No doubt that was the intention of the noble Earl, but if he looked at the words of the Clause he would see that the exception was—
  "Unless the authority on account of the accommodation in the school or the number of classes in the school consider that the instruction cannot be efficiently given on the same mornings to all the children whose parents wish them to receive it."
  He submitted that accommodation and number of classes were not only conditions which should be considered. The number of teachers available was another important fact. Under the Bill, so far as they had gone, none of the regular teachers were permitted to give religious instruction under Clause 3; some of them hoped that that would be altered, but at present the only teachers available would have to be introduced from outside. There might be very few of such teachers available. In most rural parishes there was nobody available for the work except the clergyman, and very often, if he might say so with great respect to the bench of Bishops, the clergyman was not at all fit to give that instruction, because the giving of instruction was a difficult matter, requiring very special training. Therefore, in schools of considerable size, even though there might be sufficient accommodation for all the children to receive the instruction on the same two days, and the number of classes might not present any great difficulty, yet the absence of teachers might present an insuperable obstacle. If the noble Earl wanted to make the clause really effective, he would have to introduce other conditions. The truth was that the limiting words were a mistake. The clause would have been much better if it had been left elastic and free in the form originally introduced, and the Government would do well to revert to their first mind in the matter.
  THE EARL OF CAMPERDOWNsaid he understood the noble Earl to say that under sub-section (5) of Clause 2, facilities could be required in the sense of being demanded and obtained. B sub-section (5) did nothing of the so What it said was—.
  "Nothing in this section shall prevent granting or requiring of facilities."

  1285
  It did not say they were to be given; it merely said that nothing was to prevent their being granted. One could require a thing but not get it; to ask was not the same thing as to receive, and that was all that sub-section (5) provided. Several times in the course of the discussion the right to bargain for a thing had been treated as being the same as getting it, but it was an entirely different matter.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: I think it is right that I should begin by explaining to the noble Marquess that the Lord Chancellor is, unfortunately, debarred from being present because the doctor forbids his leaving the house.
  THE MARQUESS OF SALISBURY: I am sorry I noticed his absence. I beg his pardon.
  THE EARL OF CREWE: To us on this side of the House it is a matter of the deepest regret that we should rose the benefit of his advice, and I am certain that noble Lords opposite are also sorry for his absence. In answer to the question of Earl Camperdown, it certainly was our opinion that the words at the end of sub-section (5) made it possible for a local authority to bargain in this respect with the transferring authority, and in spite of the view of the noble Marquess, we maintain that from a legal point of view the words were sufficient. That is simply a matter of legal opinion, and we were so advised by those competent to judge. But when I gave the answer to the noble Marquess I had not considered the fact that by the action of the Committee the transfer is made compulsory, and it is very possible that that fact may prevent its making a bargain in this respect. Therefore my expression was subject to the fact of a bargain being possible at all between the two parties. As regards the latter part of sub-section (1) of Clause 3, we will certainly take into full consideration the point which has been raised, but I am not at all holding out hopes that we should be able to add to the accommodation and the number of classes as conditions in reference to the granting of facilities on more than two days. The suggestion that the number of teachers
  1286
  available should be taken into account would introduce very marked complication and great difficulty.
  *VISCOUNT HALIFAXsaid it seemed to have been forgotten that under the present Bill some 12,000 Church schools with the addition of the Roman Catholic schools were to be handed over to the county councils. If the owners of those schools refused to mike the transfer the schools would practically be starved out of existence, while if they agreed to the transfer the owners were to acquiesce except on two days in the week in the giving of religious instruction of the very sort which those schools were built to prevent. The Amendment made a very moderate demand. How could the Government refuse to the minority—if it was a minority—to whom the schools originally belonged facilities on every day of the week for their own religious teaching?
  LORD ASHBOURNEthought the drafting was possibly open to question. The clause said: "not more than two mornings a week." That would be satisfied by having no morning at all or only one. He suggested it would be safer and wiser to put in the words, "not less than two mornings" or "two mornings and no more."
  THE EARL OF CREWE: We will consider the point.
  *LORD STANLEY OF ALDERLEYsaid there had been two or three important questions raised in the debate. In the case of a rural Roman Catholic school the children in which were practically all Roman Catholics, under the Bill the owners would get the right to use the school for religious teaching on two mornings in the week. But all the children would doubtless be told to take advantage of the conscience clause and refuse to accept religious teaching other than Catholic on the other three clays of the week. It would then be in the power of Catholic parents under Lord Londonderry's form of by-law to send their children to school only at the time when secular instruction began, and they could take advantage of the parish room or other premises outside the school for

  1287
  the purpose of having the children instructed in accordance with Roman Catholic principles. Therefore, they would suffer little material inconvenience. As to the five days proposal, the right rev. Prelate's argument seemed to proceed on the assumption that because a school had hitherto been a denominational school the children were mainly those desiring that particular kind of denominational education. But one of the grievances which had led to this Bill had been the fact that the character of the school had not depended on the wishes of the locality, but on the fact that a squire had chosen to establish a Church school. In the county in Wales with which he was connected he knew of one school with a Church foundation where not one of the children attending the school was a member of the Church of England. The schoolmaster and the managers were Church of England but every child was a Nonconformist. The object of this Bill was to secure that whatever definite teaching was reserved to the denomination on two days, there should be an opportunity for giving general Bible teaching on the other three. If all the five days were reserved to the denomination, those people who happened to live in a parish where the school was denominational would be the victims of the endowment of some ancient squire, and that was one of the evils the Bill was intended to prevent. His recollection was that it was contemplated that the two days would be definite days, and that as a concession to the denominational party, it was agreed that where, owing to the size of the school and the large number of scholars, all the children could not be taken at the same time, permission should be given to spread the facilities over more than two days. It was very possible that the general Bible teaching might conflict with the distinctively Anglican teaching, especially in a school which wanted teaching of a somewhat narrow view on sacraments and baptism; and the friends of definite teaching would not be protected by any syllabus, because such syllabus would only indicate the subjects and not the spirit and temper in which they should be taught. Therefore one could not ensure that the general Bible teaching
  1288
  would be in harmony with the teaching of a particular clergyman and they must take the risk. It was not at all evident, on the face of it, that the construction put by the Government upon the subsection which had been referred to was the right one, and he very much doubted whether the House of Commons appreciated it. The concession was a very serious one, and he supposed it had been made to enable managers of Church schools to feel sure that even if a local authority should become secular in the future, whatever their general policy might be, in these transferred schools at any rate, there should be some religious instruction given on every day of the week, and that that instruction would be in accordance with the Cowper-Temple clause. But if it was to be contended that there was to be an undertaking so long as the transfer held good to give Cowper-Temple teaching according to a particular syllabus, that the managers might say, "We will take all that part of our present diocesan syllabus which has to do with Bible teaching as distinct from Prayer Book and Catechism, and require that to be taught in the schools," it would be an intolerable burden, and he could not imagine any self-respecting great county authority taking over a school on those terms. It would be absolutely contrary to the whole spirit of legislation to allow a local authority elected for three years to bind its successors for all time and deprive the electors of their power over the syllabus.
  *THE LORD BISHOP OF BIRMINGHAMsaid that to a great number of persons on whose behalf he spoke this was a matter of vital principle. If a school which had been a Church school was to be transferred—a school in which there were a majority of children whose parents were not Church people, then in the name of everything sacred those children ought to receive not the instruction which Church parents would desire, but the instruction which their own parents wished according to the particular religious denomination to which they belonged. But it was quite as vital a matter that the Church people should not in any way be expected to admit that religious teaching could be split up into denominational and undenominational in the

  1289
  manner suggested, and that they ought to be content with that subdivision. It was not merely a matter of the particular subjects on the particular days; it was a matter of authority and spirit of the teaching. Supposing they had religious teaching given by the schoolmaster on the undenominational days, and by the representative of the Church (or of some other religious body) on the days set apart for denominational teaching, it was possible that they might work in harmony, but on the other hand it was possible they might not. What they claimed was there should not be imposed by the
  State on children whose parents did not wish it, a particular kind of religious teaching instead of that which they did wish. Moreover it was much easier that the children should receive religious instruction in the same groups every day of the week than that they should be differently grouped for the purpose on two mornings and on three mornings a week.
  On Question, whether the words proposed to be left out should stand part of the clause, their Lordships divided:— Contents, 49; Not-Contents, 141.

  CONTENTS.

  York, L. Abp.

  Chester, L. Bp.

  Headley, L.

  St. Asaph, L. Bp.

  Hemphill, L.

  Crewe, E. (L. President.)

  Heneage, L.

  Ripon, M. (L. Privy Seal.

  Aberdare, L.

  Joicey, L.

  Winchester, M.

  Burghclere, L.

  Kinnaird, L.

  Castletown, L.

  Monk Bretton, L.

  Beauchamp, E.

  Colebrooke, L.

  Monkswell, L.

  Camperdown, E.

  Coleridge, L.

  Monson, L.

  Carrington, E.

  Courtney, of Penwith, L.

  O'Hagan, L.

  Chesterfield, E.

  Denman, L. [Teller.]

  Overtoun, L.

  Chichester, E.

  Eversley, L.

  Reay, L.

  Craven, E.

  Fitzmaurice, L.

  Rendel, L.

  Durham, E.

  Glantawe, L.

  Ribblesdale, L.

  Granville, E.

  Granard, L. (E. Granard.) [Teller.]

  Rosebery, L. (E. Rosebery.)

  Russell, E.

  Sandhurst, L.

  Temple, E.

  Grimthorpe, L.

  Stanley of Alderley, L.

  Hamilton, of Dalzell. L.

  Tweedmouth, L.

  Althorp, V. (L. Chamberlain.)

  Harersham, L.

  Wandsworth, L.

  NOT-CONTENTS.

  Canterbury, L. Abp.

  Gainsborough, E.

  Bridport, V.

  Halsbury, E.

  Churchill, V. [Teller.]

  Norfolk, D. (E. Marshal.)

  Ilchester, E.

  Colville of Culross, V.

  Grafton, D.

  Kilmorey, E.

  Falkland, V.

  Newcastle, D.

  Lathom, E.

  Falmouth, V.

  Portland, D.

  Lindsey, E.

  Goschen, V.

  Richmond and Gordon, D.

  Lucan, E.

  Halifax, V.

  Somerset, D.

  Malmesbury, E.

  Hill, V.

  Wellington, D.

  Mayo, E.

  Hutchinson, V. (E. Donoughmore.)

  Morley, E.

  Ailesbury, M.

  Morton, E.

  Iveagh, V.

  Bath, M.

  Northesk, E.

  Llandaff, V.

  Camden, M.

  Onslow, E.

  St. Aldwyn, V.

  Hertford, M.

  Pembroke and Montgomery, E.

  Lansdowne, M.

  Plymouth, E.

  Bangor, L. Bp.

  Salisbury, M.

  Powis, E.

  Bath and Wells, L. Bp.

  Radnor, E.

  Birmingham, L. Bp.

  Albemarle, E.

  Rosse, E.

  Bristol, L. Bp.

  Ashburnham, E.

  Saint Germans, E.

  Chichester, L. Bp.

  Carnwath, E.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Lincoln, L. Bp.

  Cawdor, E.

  Stamford, E.

  London, L. Bp.

  Clarendon, E.

  Waldegrave, E. [Teller.]

  Norwich, L. Bp.

  Darnley, E.

  Westmeath, E.

  Oxford, L. Bp.

  Dartrey, E.

  Westmorland, E.

  Exeter, L. Bp.

  Denbigh, E.

  Wharncliffe, E.

  St. David's, L. Bp.

  Devon, E.

  Wicklow, E.

  Salisbury, L. Bp.

  Doncaster, E. (D. Buccleuch and Queensberry.)

  Winchelsea and Nottingham, E.

  Southwark, L. Bp.

  Wakefield, L. Bp.

  Feversham, E.

  Yarborough, E.

  Winchester, L. Bp.

  Abinger, L.

  Dunleath, L.

  Newton, L.

  Addington, L.

  Estcourt, L.

  Oranmore and Browne, L.

  Alverstone, L.

  Fermanagh, L. (E. Erne.)

  Ormonde, L. (M. Ormonde.)

  Ampthill, L.

  Fingall, L. (E. Fingall.)

  Ponsonby, L. (E. Bess-borough.)

  Atkinson, L.

  Forester, L.

  Barnard, L.

  Gage, L. (V. Gage.)

  Ramsay, L. (E. Dalhousie.)

  Bateman, L.

  Grey, de Ruthyn, L.

  Ranfurly, L. (E. Ranjurly.)

  Blythswood, L.

  Harris, L.

  Saltoun, L.

  Braye, L.

  Kenlis, L. (M. Headfort.)

  Sanderson, L.

  Burton, L.

  Kenmare, L. (E. Kenmare.)

  Sandys, L.

  Carysfort, L. (E. Carysfort.)

  Kenyon, L.

  Seaton, L.

  Chaworth, L. (E. Heath.)

  Kilmarnock, L. (E. Erroll.)

  Silchester, L. (E. Longford.)

  Cheylesmore, L.

  Kintore, L. (E. Kintore)

  Southampton, L.

  Clifford of Chudleigh, L.

  Knaresborough, L.

  Stalbridge, L.

  Colchester, L.

  Lawrence, L.

  Stewart of Garlies, L. (E. Galloway.)

  Dawnay, L. (V. Downe.)

  Leith of Fyvie, L.

  De Freyne, L.

  Lovat, L.

  Trevor, L.

  De Mauley, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Deramore, L.

  Montagu, of Beaulieu, L.

  Waleran, L.

  Digby, L.

  Mostyn, L.

  Willoughby De Broke, L.

  Douglas, L. (E. Home.)

  Mowbray, L.

  Zouche, of Haryneworth, L.

  House resumed, and to be again in Committee on Monday next.

  QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE.
  On the Motion "That this House do now adjourn,"
  LORD NEWTONsaid: My Lords, on this Motion I desire to call attention to a matter affecting the privileges of this House. It appears that four Members of the House have been sitting and voting during the present session without having previously taken the oath. I learn from Sir Erskine May's work on the laws and usages of Parliament that a Peer voting or sitting in the House of Peers without having taken the oath is subject for every such offence to a penalty of £500. I further learn that one, of these noble Lords is Lord Grimthorpe, the latest acquisition to the Ministerial ranks, who, with the proverbial zeal of a convert, has accumulated a total penalty of no less than £8,500. As a matter of strict fact and legality, I believe I am entitled to claim a portion of that money in the character of a common informer, but I need hardly assure the House that I am not actuated by sordid motives, but am inspired solely by a lofty regard for the privileges of this House. I therefore beg to ask His Majesty's Government whether, in spite of an undertaking that no contentious legislation was to be introduced during this portion of this session, they are prepared to bring in a Bill of In-
  1292
  demnity in order to relieve these misguided persons from the consequences of their neglect?
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: My Lords, Bills of Indemnity were formerly necessary in cases of this kind, which unfortunately do sometimes happen, but I understand that they are no longer necessary, because in the year 1882, in the Bradlaugh case, it was decided by this House that no one could be sued for a penalty without the fiat of the Attorney-General. Therefore, no common informer will have a chance of getting any of this money. I am sorry for my noble friend opposite, but it can only be done by the Attorney-General under the direction of the Crown. I have, had only an hour's notice of the noble Lord's intention to raise the question, but I think I may take it upon myself to say that His Majesty's Government will not instruct the Attorney-General to extract £8,000 from my noble friend. But something does require to be done, and therefore I give notice that I shall on Monday move, "That, notice having been taken that the following Lords, Lord Manners, Lord Clements (Earl of Leitrim), Lord Grimthorpe and Lord Armstrong, voted in certain divisions during the present session without having previously taken the oath, it be ordered that the entry in the Journals be amended by striking out the names of the said Lords from the lists of the divisions in which they voted before taking the oath."
  THE EARL OF HALSBUEY: I am bound to say that the noble Marquess is creating a precedent which I think requires some consideration. What the noble Marquess said is quite true as to the effect of the decision in Bradlaugh's case, and since that time the same facts have occurred more than once, but it has always been considered necessary to bring in a Bill of Indemnity. Such an occurrence has never yet been passed over without that being done. That is a point which requires to be considered, and I hope the noble Marquess will not finally determine the question till he has considered it.
  THE MARQUESS OF RIPON: I have only stated what I have been advised in the matter, and I cannot say anything further. But when my Motion comes on on Monday I hope the noble and learned Earl will favour us with his opinion in the matter.
  LORD GRIMTHORPE: As one of the misguided persons singled out by my noble friend opposite, I think it my duty to rise and offer an apology to the House for inadvertently having violated its rules. I can only offer an excuse similar to that made by Dr. Johnson on a celebrated occasion, "Ignorance, sheer ignorance." I had an impression that while House of Commons may come and House of Commons may go, the House of Lords went on for ever, and that, having once taken the oath, it was not necessary to repeat the ceremony. If I may say so, the rule is a little ambiguous in that respect. I do not mean to say that I studied the rule very carefully, but it distinctly states that—
  "On the opening of a new Parliament those present shall take the oath."
  It does not say anything about those absent. I was not one of those present at the opening. As it happened, I did not show the zeal of the convert which has been attributed to me by my noble friend, inasmuch as I did not appear until June last year, by which time things had settled down and there were none of those signs and tokens in your Lordships' House so numerous in the House of Commons that forcibly remind one that an old Parliament has given place to a new. Under these circumstances I
  1294
  hope your Lordships will pardon the inadvertence of which I have been guilty; I can only apologise sincerely, and throw myself on your indulgence.
  House adjourned at half-past Eleven o'clock, to Monday next, a quarter past Four o'clock.